Quality of any journal mainly depends
upon the quality of evaluation being done by its
Reviewer/Editorial Board Members of our Journal are
therefore expected to follow and maintain
the basic rules of reviewing,
once they receive any article for reviewing. To meet the
dead-line of the publication, the reviewers
are expected to review the article within
one month time. Therefore
reviewers are expected to select
potential articles which do not demand
Criteria for Reviewing:
The reviewer must have relevant research
the Article: Any major divergence from
the standard manuscript format should be
Technical Presentation: The research
article should be technically presented.
Novelty: The work should have some
degree of novelty. Mere repetition of past
work should not be accepted. You can look
for conceptual advancement over previously
published work. Any major omission of the
previously published findings on the similar
problem must be checked.
Interpretation of Result: The discussion
should hover around the result and should
not include irrelevant and unachievable
Reviewer must check whether proper statistics
has been applied by the author over the data, wherever
Plagiarism of Data: Data showing any type of
suspicion, duplication and manipulation must
be brought to the notice of the author(s)
and editor in chief.
Summary: Pin point the strength and weakness
of the article considering potential
importance of the work
in present and future context.
Finally, reviewer(s) can recommend
necessary corrections needed to accept the
paper, if they are actually required, else
recommend it for publication. If found
unsuitable the paper should be declared as
unacceptable for publication.
Reviewer/Editor must send the report [regarding
suggestions/acceptance/rejection of the article] via email.
to download its copy
Reviewer should try to review the article within one
month time so that timely processing of the
Journal can be made. In exceptional cases
the deadline can be extended further.
Complete manuscript must be reviewed in any
case, until and unless the paper appears
absolutely fake or of poorest standard.
Reviewer must also write the instructions on
reviewer’s certificate, available in our
Reviewers are requested to avoid any
personalized remarks which may hurt the
sentiments of author(s) or may be viewed as
Authors are further recommended to go
Terms and Conditions before
submitting their manuscripts.
"Scholarly Peer Reviewed, Quality Scientific Publication"