Statement of Peer Review Policies

Statement of Peer Review Policies

Type of Peer Review(s)
The journal conducts both external and internal blind peer review by a select team of experts. The name of Reviewers will not be disclosed so as not to compromise on the ethics, quality and standard of the journal.

Peer review guidelines
The journal strictly abides double blinded peer review model. Two academic experts involve in reviewing the manuscripts received from the authors. It ensures the standard and the quality of the article published in the journal. The reviewers review the articles according to the peer reviewed guidelines set by the academy.

Review Process:
Manuscripts are subjected to plagiarism checking and then send to the reviewers. The Editor/Associate Editor of the journal conducts preliminary review of the manuscripts received. The review of the secondary level which is of rigorous nature will be done by the reviewers. Based on the Review report of the referees, Editorial board forwards the article for publication, and or ensures that the author has carried out the necessary changes or modifications suggested. 

Special cases
Editors are excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript. In such cases the review process and publication decision will be overseen by an alternate Editor.
The review process for ishal paithrkam Insights articles adheres to the same rigour as for externally submitted papers, but it is adjusted to reflect the nature of ishal paithrkam Insights (see Editorial Statement). The review is overseen by the Editors. Articles are typically assessed in the first instance by a member of the editorial team and then peer reviewed by experts with requisite subject and technical expertise drawn from ishal paithrkam, other international organizations and academia.

Communications with authors
At each stage of the review process, authors will be provided reasoned and constructive feedback about the decisions on their manuscript.

Conflicts of interest
Assigned Associate Editors and reviewers should inform the Editors of any potential conflicts with the assigned manuscript, for instance, resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions. In such instances they should inform the editors and recuse themselves from the review process.

Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The confidentiality of participants in the review process is protected.

Appeals
Appeals against editorial decisions require a formal appeal letter with point-by-point evidence supporting the appeal. In line with generally accepted standards, appeals are considered only on the basis of (i) reviewers’ potential technical errors in their assessment of the manuscript, (ii) new information or data that has come to light since submission of manuscript and (iii) evidence as to potential conflicts ,of interest of reviewers. Appeals against an editorial decision must be submitted within 14 days of the decision notice.
One appeal per manuscript is allowed. The Editor-in-Chief will consult the editorial team and where appropriate seek further advice from members of the Editorial Advisory Board. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.
Appeal letters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and should be submitted to the editorial office (editor@mappilakalaacademy.org).