Ethical Guide for Chief Editor
- Chief editor should take responsibility to guarantee as far as possible the published contents are up to scientific quality, meet ethical conduct, and free from conflicting influence.
- Chief editor should take prompt action to correct errors in published contents whether a formal complaint is received.
- Chief editor should avoid publishing paper co-authored with any editorial board member in the journal. In case of such manuscript is submitted, it is subjected to the regular peer review process of the journal, and the final decision should be made by the handling editor regarding acceptance, rejection, or revision of the manuscript.
- Chief editor should also follow the ethical guide for editor as detailed below.
- Chief editor should ensure the aims and scope of the journal reflect the new direction of the fields of study.
- Chief editor should strategise the development of the journal.
Ethical Guide for Editor
- Editor should consider each manuscript unbiasedly.
- Editor may reject a manuscript without review if it is incomplete or outside the journal’s scope.
- Editor must keep the confidentiality of all the information of a submission.
- Editors should not involve in the review process of any self-authored manuscript submitted to the journal.
- Editor should not use any material in a submission for other purposes without the consent of the authors.
- Editor should make all reasonable effort to process submissions on time.
Ethical Guide for Reviewers
- Reviewer should understand the review policy of the journal.
- Reviewer should declare any potential conflict of interest.
- Reviewer should assess the manuscript objectively based on scientific quality. Avoid personal criticism of the author, and defamatory remarks.
- Reviewer should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
- Reviewer should not use any material in a submission for other purposes.
- Reviewer must keep the confidentiality of all the information of a submission.
- Reviewer must keep the confidentiality of communication with the editor(s).
- Reviewer must contact the editor if he/she wants to pass a review invitation onto another reviewer.
Peer Review Process
This journal operates a double-blind review process. The process is as follows:
- The journal/ The publisher receives a manuscript.
- The manuscript will be screened for plagiarism using Ouriginal. Only manuscripts with a similarity index of not more than 20% will be processed further.
- An editor will be assigned to assess the manuscript for completeness and scope to decide whether it is suitable for review. In the case if an editor is on the author's list or has any conflict of interest, this editor will be excluded from handling and making decision on the manuscripts.
- The handling editor identifies a minimum of two reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript. The review process should be completed within four (4) weeks.
- The reviewers provide written reviews and suggest a recommendation for publication, which are either accept, reject, or revise.
- The handling editor considers but not bound by the review reports for final decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or revision of the manuscript.
- In the case where the chief editor and managing editor can justify that one review is substantial, the chief editor decides for final decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or revision of the manuscript.
- The corresponding author receives the reviewed report and the editorial decision.
- If revision is required, the authors will be given 2 weeks (minor revision) or 8 weeks (major revision) to revise the manuscript.
- The authors decide whether to revise and resubmit or withdraw.
- If the manuscript is accepted, it moves into production for publication.