Peer-review Terms and Conditions:

We are delighted to announce that as per a recent paper published in a Springer Nature journal, we have received 2nd rank among Top Global Publishers to adopt the modern transparent OPEN peer-review process.

To get more information, please see these links:

  1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4/tables/2
  2. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4

Terms and Conditions:

  1. Transparency:From 7 August 2012, we have migrated to a transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system from a double-blind review.  This transparent process helps to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc.) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect once their names are published in the papers. Of course, if reviewers do not want to reveal their identities, we will honour that request. In that case, only the review reports will be published as ‘anonymous reviewer report’.
  2. Peer-review Database:Additionally, ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ greatly helps in the ‘continuity and advancement of science’. If a journal publishes all peer-review-related files, then these files slowly form a vast Peer-review knowledge database.  If properly used, this Peer-review database can result in savings of thousands of hours for future authors during experiments, manuscript preparation, etc., by minimizing the common errors. Thus re-invention of the wheel during peer review may be avoided. Therefore, as per our official policy, all peer review-related files will be available in the “Review history” link along with the published paper. As of June 2024, our reviewers have contributed more than 212,000 peer-review reports to the Peer-review Database. As per Clarivate Analytics (Publons) Web of Science reviewer recognition database, 128,315 reviews have been recorded from our esteemed reviewers (up to 8 July 2024). Kudos to our reviewers for their outstanding contributions.
  3. Objective Evaluation and Improvement:Additionally, we believe that one of the main objectives of peer-review system is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. We usually try to publish the ‘average marks (out of 10)’ of a manuscript received at the initial peer review stage and at the final publication stage to record its history of improvement during peer review. This process further increases transparency. It is more important to record the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’ than claiming that ‘our peer review system is perfect’. Therefore, these transparent processes (i.e. publication of review history files and scores of a particular manuscript) also give readers a clear idea of the strengths and weaknesses of a published paper. This process enhances the chances of proper use of the result of research (and/or reduces the chances of misuse of the weakness of the paper’s findings). Thus this transparent process may prove highly beneficial for society in the long run.
  4. Peer Review Deadline: Balance of Quality and timeliness during peer-review is very important. ‘Peer-review Deadline’ condition is defined as receiving the first two QUALITY peer review commentsor meeting the deadline date mentioned in the review invitation, whichever is earlier. Comments received after the deadline condition will not be used in the peer review process to complete other stages of peer review in time (in normal conditions). But the journal editorial office will reserve the right to use any review comments received after the deadline in abnormal situations. During the peer review process, many potential reviewers are invited. To complete the peer-review process in time, the first two quality review comments are considered. Comments received after the “Peer Review Deadline Condition” are considered as Additional Review Comments. These comments are digitally archived and often consulted (or even included) by the editorial office during any critical decision-making process. Therefore, the used review comments (i.e. first received two comments) and additional review comments are critical from a scholarly point of view. From 22 November 2021 list of additional reviewers will also be available in the “Complete Peer–review history” link of the published paper.

Editorial Policy link: https://r1.reviewerhub.org/general-editorial-policy/