Peer Review/Editorial Process and Publication Policy

  • All the Journals published by 'CENTRE FOR INFO BIO TECHNOLOGY' [CIBTech] follows double blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

  • Article received from the corresponding author must follow our Journals format. Article is checked by the Editor-in-Chief and it is forwarded to the editor/reviewer only if it is found having some original content and some significance to the readers. Further process and criteria for reviewing is mentioned below.

  • Aim of the work presented in the article must reflect degree of originality in the article. Reviewer can look for conceptual advancement over previously published work. Any major omission of the previously published findings on the similar problem must be checked.

  • Article must be technically presented.

  • Interpretation of Result: The discussion should hover around the result and should not include irrelevant and unachievable statement.

  • Statistical Presentation: Reviewer must check whether proper statistics has been applied by the author over the data wherever found necessary.

  • Plagiarism of Data: Data showing any type of suspicion, duplication and manipulation must be brought to the notice of the author(s) and editor. Plagiarized article will be out rightly returned and rejected for further and future review. Same rule applies for self-plagiarism.

  • If copyrighted material is used in the manuscript, full attribution must be provided in the text. Author must send the proof of permission to the editorial office for such referred work. It is the responsibility of the authors, to properly attribute the data or text or image previously published elsewhere.

  • Reviewer will 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 (if needed) to accept the paper. Reviewer will review complete manuscript in any case, until and unless the paper appears absolutely fake or of poorest standard. All the suggestions for corrections (by the reviewer or editorial board members) must be written on the reviewer’s report, available in our website. Reviewers are requested to avoid any personalized remarks. 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. Reviewer can click here to download the report’s copy

  • Author has to return the article within two to three week’s time after making the corrections/changes as asked by the reviewer(s). Author will get only two opportunities to correct the article. After that, failing to satisfy the reviewer’s queries will automatically lead to article’s rejection.

  • Review Time: The article must be reviewed within one to two months. In exceptional cases the deadline can be extended further.

  • Authors are further recommended to go through our Terms and Conditions and Instructions for Authors WebPages before submitting their manuscripts.

  • The journal requires that all authors disclose any potential sources of conflict of interest.

"Scholarly Peer Reviewed, Quality Scientific Publication"