We follow the peer review policy to ensure that the content published is scientifically sound and unbiased. We follow the same policy as followed by scientific journals world-wide. The journal employes a blinded review policy so that the data is critically reviewed.

The peer review policy consists of the following steps;

1. Editorial evaluation
2. External peer review

Editorial evaluation

Immediately upon submission, the editor undertakes a thorough reading of the manuscript with respect to the content, data quality and overall presentation of the manuscript. In case of serious flaws with data presentation or writing, the manuscript is returned to the authors at this stage. Associate editors handle the manuscript and oversee the review process of the manuscripts assigned to them. If the editor finds the manuscript worth considering, he sends its out for external peer review. Very rarely, an exceptional manuscript may be accepted at this stage itself, but in consultation with other editors.

Special issues

In case of special issues, guest editors oversee the review process in consultation with the editor-in-chief.

External peer review

The reviewers selected are anonymous and random but from relevant subject areas. The reviewers are required to confirm that they do not have any conflict of interest which can affect their recommnedations.

Double blind review: The reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other all through the review process.

Selection of referees: The referees are generally related to the subject of the manuscript under consideration. For this we encourage the authors to register them for reviewing the manuscript submitted to the journal.

Referee reports: The referees are requested to provide a summary of the manuscript, and comment on originality of the idea, soundness of the methods used, quality of data, presentation of the manuscript, writing standard and novelty. Referees are free to provide language corrections in the form of edited manuscript, but this is optional. Simple recommendation to accept or reject without scientific comments is not considered for evaluation of the manuscript and the manuscript is not sent to such a referee for further evaluation.

Length of peer review process: We request the reviewers to provide their comments as soon as possible. Generally, 14 days are given to provide comments; however, sometimes this may exceed, leading to delays in decision making. In an endeavour to save precious time to the authors, we try to have the referees reports as early as possible. With this, we also request all reviewers to provide their comments as early as they would expect their papers to be reviewed somebody else.

Final report and decision: In the light of the reviewers' comments, the editor again reads the manuscript and makes a decision. The decision is taken by the associated editors in consultation with the editor-in-chief. In case of conflicting views, advice from the editorial board members is sought. If the manuscript is rejected, the authors cannot submit a revision; however, if a revision is suggested, the authors are encouraged to appropriately revise the manuscript and re-submit. Upon re-submission, the editor would decide if the manuscript is to be re-reviewed or could be accepted at this stage.