Journal Review Process

Peer Review Policies

The editorial team of the Journal shall strictly follow the policies and procedures for the editorial and peer review processes of the manuscripts through which it shall be ensured that:

  • the content of the manuscript is relevant to the aim/scope of the Journal;
  • the manuscript has produced innovative and quality research;
  • the format and layout of the Journal are followed in the manuscript, and
  • the style, grammar, and language composition used in the manuscript are correct.

The review policy of the Journal shall involve editorial review as well as peer-review of the manuscripts. If the editorial team accepts, the manuscript shall be processed for double-blind peer review by relevant experts of well-recognized national and international repute. Before being approved for publication, a manuscript must be accepted by at least two experts in the relevant field. The identity of the author(s) shall be kept secret from the peer-reviewers and vice versa in the peer-review processes. The peer-reviewers may know the authors' identity only after the manuscript's publication.

  • The manuscript submitted to the Journal shall be assigned to a section editor who shall be responsible for processing it according to the Journal policy and procedure; 
  • The suggestions and comments (if any) shall be shared with the author(s) for revision of the manuscript accordingly;
  • The section editor may consider the revised submission for peer-review processes without changes, ask the author(s) for minor changes or significant changes, or reject it outright—desk reject;
  • In case the article is considered for the peer-review process, the manuscript shall be forwarded to an assistant editor (sub-editor) for necessary editing and formatting following the Journal specific template, if required;
  • The formatted manuscript shall be forwarded for double-blind peer review to at least two experts (subject specialists) of international repute;
  • In exceptional cases, the manuscript shall be sent to two experts of international repute. However, in this case, at least one of the local experts must be a faculty member or have obtained a Ph.D. or Post-doctorate from HEC recognized national or international University/Institution;
  • It shall be ensured that the reviewers are selected according to the expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript;
  • The section editor shall seek to have at least one reviewer from the country or region that is the focus of the manuscript;
  • The peer-reviewers shall specifically evaluate the manuscript for quality of the research based on its relevancy, originality, and innovation;
  • The author(s) must incorporate all the required changes according to the suggestions and comments of reviewers. In case of difference(s), if any, the author(s) shall record clarification(s) or explanation(s) for each observation or comment of disagreement;
  • The revised and updated version of the manuscript shall be examined by the section editor for validation and verification of the required changes based on the suggestions and comments of the reviewers;
  • The Editor-in-chief or the Editor (under the intimation to the Editor-in-chief) may request an expert opinion from the editorial adviser(s) for resolving the difference(s) or the conflicting report(s), if any, and
  • The Editor-in-Chief of the Journal decides to publish or reject the revised and updated manuscript.

The peer-reviewers of the Journal shall evaluate an article based on the following 10 principles and standards as a minimum requirement for acceptance of a manuscript. 

  1. The title is brief, clear, and appropriate to the content/purpose of the article. (Example: Active verbs are used instead of complex noun-based phrases. It is around 10 to 12 words long and summarises the main idea or ideas of the study);
  2. The abstract accurately describes the content of the paper. (Example: It discusses a compact view of the research problem, purpose of study, research design, and key findings and is 150-200 words long);
  3. The Keywords are enough and appropriate. (Example: It does not use words or phrases from the title or supplement its contents. These are descriptive, represent key concepts and nouns, and are 5-7 words);
  4. The Introduction gives an overview from a general subject area to a particular topic of inquiry. (Example: It describes the purpose, scope, context, significance, background, hypothesis(es), question(s), brief methodology, outcome(s), and an outline of the remaining structure/organization of the article);
  5. The Literature Review gives an overview of the sources explored and demonstrates how the study fits within the larger field of the study. (Example: It gives a description, summary, and critical evaluation of sources explored about the research problem(s) being investigated);
  6. The Research Methodology is adequately described. (Example: It describes the actions taken for investigation of the research problem and the rationale for the application of the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze the information applied to understanding the problem);
  7. Results are presented. (Example: It reports the findings of the study based upon the methodology(ies) being applied, and in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation if data is generated from the author’s research);
  8. The discussion is clear, and the findings are accurately analyzed. (Example: It interprets and describes the significance of findings in light of what was already known about the research problem. It explains that new understanding or insights emerge based on studying the problem. It is connected to the introduction through research questions or hypothesis(es) and the literature review);
  9. The findings of the results support the conclusion. (Example: It helps the readers to understand why the research should matter to them. It gives a synthesis of key points and (if applicable) recommends new areas for future research); and
  10. English Language and Style meets the standard. (Example: It is clear, unambiguous, and objective, i.e., gives reasons and evidence. It uses active voice, and a minimum level of passive voice is used where required. Mainly uses ordinary language rather than complicated expressions and technical terminologies). It is also required for authors to use a unique/uniform English language style—either British or American English.