PEER REVIEWED PROCESS FOLLOWED
Any article submitted to the journals of Academic Science Publications and Distributions (ASPD) will be subjected to the following course of editorial and peer review process.
All submitted articles will be initially studied by the editorial board for suitability of the article to be included in the peer review process. Articles that are not suitable will be rejected at this stage itself and the concerned authors will be informed on the same. If an article is found to be suitable its submitted to the concerned Editor who inspects the manuscript, if he determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to be submitted for review or if the submitted manuscript is out of scope of the journal he reject the submission without any further processing. An email will be sent to the concerned author informing about the rejection of manuscript.
If the Chief Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and also falls within the scope of the submitted journal, he/she sends the article to one of the journal’s associate or managing editor for further processing. All managing editors are empowered to reject the articles if he/she feels that a normal review process is not required based on any reason. If the managing editor feels that it can be sent for review to the concerned reviewers. Academic Science Publications and Distributions (ASPD) reserves its right to hold some of the articles without processing further if it deems to be necessary.
If the submitted articles need and scope differs from the scope of the journal submitted Academic Science Publications and Distributions (ASPD)’s editors reserves the right to consider it for another journal if that journals scope matches with the submitted article. If in all cases it does not match the article will be rejected and the same will be informed to the concerned authors.
The reviewer may be selected from the potential reviewers provided by the authors while submitting the article but its not mandatory to send only to them. The reviewers will review the papers and submit their own review report along with their recommendations of one of the following actions
Publish Unaltered
Publish after Minor Changes
Review again after Major Changes
Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel
When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the managing Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations to the Chief Editor
Publish Unaltered
Review Again after Minor Changes
Review Again after Major Changes
Reject
If the recommendation is publish unaltered the Chief Editor process the article for publishing, the article will be sent to Technical Editor.
If the recommendation is to submit after minor changes, the article will be send to the corresponding author of the article for submitting after making the recommended corrections. Corresponding author is the responsible person to resubmit the article after making recommended corrections within stipulated time.
If the recommendation is to submit after major change, the Chief Editor determines whether to accept the paper or not, if he rejects the author will be informed about the decision, if he accepts the above-mentioned procedure will be adopted.
If the decision is rejected, authors will be informed about the decision over mail, they are requested not to resubmit the same paper again. Authors are requested not to resubmit the article which was rejected in the review process.
The total process from submission to intimation may take anywhere in the range of 30 days to 60 days, authors are requested not to submit the article to any other journals in the mean time which is protected by the copyright transfer agreement submitted by the concerned authors while submitting the articles.
The total editorial workflow assigns Chief Editor the total responsibility to select or reject any article, he/she is the sole authority in the full editorial process. The peer review is single blinded, i.e. the reviewers know who are the authors but the authors are not informed about who are the reviewers.
Academic Science Publications and Distributions (ASPD) is an independent association who’s success is determined by the association members, review panel members and editors, soon a separate acknowledgement page will be provided in our site for acknowledging the work done by the Editors, Reviewers, and other supporters in the near future.