Peer Review Statement
All submissions to this journal undergo rigorous peer review to assess the scientific quality of the submitted manuscripts. Authors should ensure that their manuscripts follow the prescribed guidelines for authors prior to submission. In case a manuscript during initial editorial screening is not found to fulfil the aims, scope, and guidelines of the journal, it is summarily declined. After the initial editorial screening for completeness and technical suitability, a submitted manuscript undergoes double-blind review by at least two independent peer reviewers of the concerned technical area(s). Manuscripts are evaluated based on their scientific significance, scientific quality, and presentation quality through an objective assessment (Referee Evaluation Form). The reviewers provide their opinion in a defined form containing objective evaluation of different attributes, overall assessment score, and separate comments for the authors and editors. A Divisional Editor, in consultation with his editorial team, pays due consideration to the peer-reviewed reports and the opinions of the editorial team while making a decision; but is not bound by the opinions or recommendations of the reviewers. A manuscript may be either further processed without major revisions, or considered for satisfactory revision by the author(s), or declined for further consideration. The authors are normally provided with adequate technical guidance for undertaking the required revisions. If necessary, a revised manuscript may be resent for review by the reviewer(s). Subsequent revisions of the manuscript by the authors may be necessary in case all issues are not satisfactorily resolved; or, in the worst case it may not be further considered. A final decision on acceptance / non-acceptance of a manuscript is taken by the Editor-in-Chief after due consideration of review reports, recommendation of the Editor, and examination of the content of the manuscript. After technical editing, the authors are given ample opportunity to further improve upon the content of a manuscript before taking a final decision.
Where an Editor or any Editorial Board member is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board is assigned to oversee peer review process.
Authors may appeal against non-acceptance by sending an e-mail to the Editors-in-Chief giving a detailed justification, including point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers and editor(s). Appeals can only be submitted following a “decline” decision, and submitted within three weeks from the decision date. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the appeal not being further considered. The Editor-in-Chief or the handling Editor duly considers the technical points raised by the authors under the ambit of the reviewer reports / Editorial Board comments, and any other material deemed fit; and decides whether (a) the appeal should be considered; (b) the decision on decline should stand; or (c) another independent technical opinion of a subject-matter expert is required. The complainant, if appropriate, is informed of the decision with required explanation.