Peer Review is a vital practice in the scholarly publishing process to ensure that only high-quality research is published. All manuscripts submitted to the journals published by the Asian Network for Scientific Information undergo the standard peer-review process, following the procedure outlined below:
Manuscripts submitted via Online Submission System routinely undergo initial screening by one of the Academic Editor before scientific review. This step is limited to, the following checklist
Manuscripts failed to qualify Step 1 (initial evaluation) will be rejected without scientific review.
Following are the most common reasons for rejection of the articles at the initial step:
Out of scope – Manuscripts immediately return to the author without scientific review, if the topic is out of the journal’s scope.
Careless preparation – It is essential for authors to present a persuasive and rational argument in their papers in an impressive way. Manuscripts having too many spelling mistakes, poor English writing, a large number of cited references not listed in the list of references is another reason for negative comments even if the research is of high quality.
Repetition of known results - Manuscripts reporting insufficiently original (a study which is largely similar but not identical to the ones already reported in the literature) are not considered original unless they carry some message that was not reported earlier or there is a strong justification for replication.
Duplication/plagiarism - Duplicate publications (publish or attempting to publish substantially the same work more than once), and plagiarism is considered seriously. Explanation from authors is sought if the submitted manuscript is found to be already published in full or part. If the author does not provide satisfactory reasons within seven days, the manuscript will be rejected without review, and action will be initiated as per the journal’s policies.
Asian Network for Scientific Information employs a double-blind review, where both the reviewer and author remain anonymous throughout the process.
Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and our selection criteria are based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations. We avoid using reviewers who are chronically slow, sloppy, too harsh or too lenient.
Academic Editor of the journal is responsible for inviting reviewers, and only on the acceptance of the invitation, reviewers have access to the full paper.
Each submitted manuscript is reviewed by at least two experts. Usually 30 days are given to the reviewers to complete their review. Although editors always hope for a quick turnaround, this is not always possible. However, the editorial office is responsible to communicate with the reviewers once the paper sent to them, followed by weekly reminders of their due date.
To ensure fairness in the referee process, we try to avoid reviewers who:
Because it is not possible for the editor to know of all potential biases, we ask reviewers to inform us of anything that might affect their report, including commercial interests, and to decline to review in cases they feel they are unable to be objective. We do not find it necessary to exclude reviewers who have reviewed a paper for another journal; the fact that two journals have independently identified a particular person as qualified does not decrease the validity of his/her opinion.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the under consideration manuscript is:
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process.
Academic Editor of the journal is responsible for compiling the final reviewer report (reject or accept) and communicate the author after getting final approval from the editor.
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript based on the remarks of the reviewers and the Editor's assessment of the manuscript.
Submission of manuscripts
The corresponding author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system such as Science Alert. In case of technical issues, journals may accept submissions by email.
Editorial Office Assessment
The Journal Editorial Staff checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it is prepared according to the journal’s format and manuscript fall in the scope of the journal. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
Assigned to Academic Editors
Article assigned to Academic Editors who handle the peer review process.
Invitation to Reviewers
The Academic Editor sends invitations to appropriate reviewers for possible peer review of the manuscript.
Respond to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
The Review is Conducted
The reviewers have 30 days to read the paper several times and prepare their reviewer report. If reviewer found major problems during very first reading, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The Academic Editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Academic Editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments.
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Academic Editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the Academic Editor.
N. B. This diagram is a representation of the peer review process, and should not be taken as the definitive approach used by every journal.