Standard Ideals and Responsibilities

• Enthusiastically seek the assessments of Authors, Readers, Reviewers and other Editorial Board members about procedures of developing their journal’s scope.
• Encourage originality designed to reduce academic misconduct.
• Inviting Eminent members in the field of the Journal to join the Editorial Board.
• Suggesting special issues and deadlines subsequently.
• Final decision of an Article.
• Best owing the beneficial guidance to upsurge the quality of Journals.
• Referring Reviewers based on the scope of the Article.
• Promoting the Journal in the Scientific Conferences, Seminars, Research groups, etc.
• Submitting Editorials/Research/Review/other types of Articles.
• Support in the review process of committed submissions.
• Should support in timely issue release.
• Communicate regularly with the Editorial Coordinator.

Choosing Reviewers

• Editors should safeguard that appropriate reviewer are selected for submissions based on the scope of the article
• Editors should preferably select at least two reviewers to provide a report
• Considering the two reviewer comments, however, the final decision either to publish or reject lies in the hands of Editors.
• In case assigned reviewers consistently produce discourteous, poor quality, or late reviews, editors can suggest potential reviewers in order to maintain a journal quality and timely issue release.

Review Process

• Editors should give an unbiased review to each manuscript submitted for publication and intend to analyze the manuscript on its merits, without bearing in mind race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
• Editors should be ready to uphold any essential deviation from the described peer-review process.
• Editors should need reviewers to report any potential competing interests before confirming to review an article.
• Editors are supposed to preserve the peer review process confidential and reliable information or findings or accordance about a manuscript in the circumstance that not be shared with anyone outside of the peer-review process.
• Must ensure and monitor the high standard and timely peer-review process.

Editor Decision

• Editor’s approval to accept or reject an article for publication in accordance with the review comments and their personal view the point on the article significance, uniqueness, and clarity, the study’s efficacy and its appropriateness to the scope of the journal.
• Editors should tag any case of doubtful, misconduct or disputed authorship with the editor-in-chief or the publisher.