Editorial Review Policy
All submitted materials, including manuscripts, cover letters, texts, figures like charts, tables, and annexures, are carefully reviewed (Peer Review - First Screening) by our Chief Editor, Assistant Editor, and Managing Editor before being accepted for publication in the Journal. This initial review comprises checking the reference style, relevance to basic science, and basic structure, such as the abstract, keyword, and introduction. Authors are informed of the requirements for any inclusions or corrections or for any clarifications, if necessary. The writers must submit the necessary documents again after making any necessary revisions. Additionally, the assistant editor reviews the manuscript's content and concept and provides his feedback.
The manuscript will be rejected if it falls short of the required standard or if it is not relevant to the IJLPR aim and scope. The author will need to send corrections for the remarks received from the subsequent peer review, therefore first screening acceptance does not ensure full acceptance.
Following this, the manuscript will be forwarded to not less than one Associate Editor (for subject review), one or more Advisory Editor (for Subject and content review), and atleast two Reviewers in our Reviewer Panel. Request will also be made simultaneously at least 5 peer reviewers who are not members of our Editorial Board or reviewer panel but who have recently worked on or published works that are quite similar to the manuscript's title and goal. On acceptance of our request we make sure they accept reviewer policy and will forward the manuscript to those who have accepted to peer review so. This will guarantee a thorough review of the manuscript to recent trends of that particular topic. We approach these particular reviewers and ask them to conduct a peer review until we hear back from them. This evaluation is done to determine the manuscript's relevance, need for the study, appropriate technique, accurate interpretation of the results, good description of the results, etc.
Reviewers are expected to complete their assignments on time and in full compliance with all standards. To meet deadlines, they must work with the editorial office. They must annotate the article with their remarks and recommendations in the designated spaces.
The reviewers are asked to conduct a fair and unbiased evaluation of all the elements expected of a research manuscript, including the content, originality, applicability of the findings, data analysis and interpretation, etc. They are also asked to offer helpful criticism, suggestions, and recommendations. When determining if the work is appropriate, the reviewer should also take into account the English language, grammar, and other issues. For more information, please see "For Reviewers" on our journal's home page.
We use a double-blind peer review method, in which the names of the reviewers and authors are kept secret from one another, to help ensure an objective, fair evaluation of the paper. Until the paper is accepted and published, strict confidentiality is maintained in this regard. The list of reviewers wouldn't be released until after the manuscript was published.
Reviewer comments are forwarded to the author for correction or rectification with the expectation that they will be returned. This continues till the reviewer approves the manuscript (with or without condition statement). The manuscript would then be given to the managing editor or editor in chief (second screening) along with the reviewers' comments and any necessary author corrections. It is at this point that the manuscript's final acceptance or rejection is decided, depending on the comments of the peer review. Without much delay, the author would receive an acceptance notification upon the manuscript's final acceptance, however in the event that the manuscript is rejected, the editor in chief/managing editor may choose to send it to an additional 2 reviewers (Reviewer 4 and reviewer 5) and if they both agree, the work will be accepted for publication; however, if they disagree, the it will be returned to the author with reasons for rejection.
The author has the right to appeal a reviewer's decision if they are unsatisfied with the decision and provide justification for why the document should be accepted. On the basis of the author's arguments and explanations, the editor in chief decides to reconsider for a second peer review procedure.
A pre-print proof with a potential DOI is delivered to the author for final proof correction and approval once the text is complete and all reviewer and editor comments have been addressed.
The manuscript is produced as PDF files for publishing once the author makes final proof edits to the preprint proof version of the document. We make every effort to peer-review every manuscript from the time it is submitted until it is published, and whenever a manuscript is found to be lacking in terms of its content, violating an embargo, the author engaging in unethical behaviour, etc., the author will be asked to make corrections or provide an explanation. If the corrections or explanations are not adequate, the manuscript will be withheld from publication.
Please refer COPE FLOW charts and infographics - Full set - English https:doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26 version 2 : March 2021.
"Screening guidelines" will be emailed to all reviewers and editorial board members who were chosen to participate in the peer review process for the relevant paper. These recommendations make it easier to check the document for errors, omissions, or other technical, scientific, logical, etc. requirements. Although reviewers are free to go beyond what these screening standards suggest, they are expected to work toward a manuscript that is error-free.
Editor "Manuscript Screening Guidelines"
The guidelines for manuscript screening shall be followed by each member of the Editorial Board. This is essential for ensuring that every board member adheres to an efficient editorial procedure. Only editorial board members and reviewer members have access to this "Manuscript screening guidelines".