Review Process and Policy (Career College Bhopal Journals)
1. Generation Information
(a) Research Papers, Articles, Letters, Brief Communications,Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles will be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
(b) If other contributed articles present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
(c) About the peer-review process, we encourage reviewers to contact us through email.
2. Criteria for Publication
Career College Bhopal Journals receives many more submissions than they can publish. Therefore, we ask peer-reviewers to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in CCB Journals, a paper should meet following general criteria:
(a) Research work of quality and unpublished nature.
(b) Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
(c) Novel, Innovative and Meaningful and important to specific field.
(d) Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.
(e) In general paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves publication.
3. The Review Process
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. The article is subjected to plagiarism check with software available and rejected if plagiarism is beyond 25%. Editor may decide to get article reviewed by more than one levier. Only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. The editors can make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:
(a) Accept, with or without editorial revisions
(b) Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
(c) Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a re submission
(d) Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretation problems
4. Post Review- Re review Process:
Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.
We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.
When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send are submitted papers back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.
We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so.
5. Selection of Peer Reviewers
Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience. We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review.
6. Access to the Literature by Peer Reviewers
If a reviewer does not have access to any published paper that is necessary for evaluation of a submitted manuscript, the journal will supply the reviewer with a copy.
7. Review Report
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that authors can understand needs to be done to improve the manuscript. Confidential comments to the editor are welcome; the ideal review should answer the following questions:
(a) Who will be interested in reading the paper, and why?
(b) Are the claims novel? If not, which published papers compromise novelty?
(c) How much would further work improve it, and how difficult would this be?
(d) If the manuscript is unacceptable, is it promising for re submission?
CCB Journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed.
We do not release referees' identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
10. Peer Review Publication Policies
All contributions submitted to CCB Journals that are selected for peer review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journals sympathetically consider such requests and usually honor them, but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final.
Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.