• +91 9975564244
  • support@vexido.com
  • Pune, India

Peer Review Policy

At Vexido Publications LLP, we are committed to ensuring the highest standards of academic quality and integrity through a robust and transparent peer review process. This policy outlines the principles, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the peer review process for all journals under our management.

1. Objectives of Peer Review

The primary goals of the peer review process are to:

  • Assess the quality, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
  • Ensure the integrity and rigor of published research.
  • Provide constructive feedback to authors for improving their work.

2. Peer Review Model

We follow a Double-Blind Peer Review process:

  • Anonymity of Authors and Reviewers: The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure impartial evaluations.

3. Selection of Reviewers

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.
  • They must have no conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or funding sources associated with the manuscript.
  • The editorial team maintains a diverse pool of reviewers to promote inclusivity and diverse perspectives.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Reviewers are expected to:

    • Provide an objective, fair, and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript.
    • Assess the manuscript’s originality, scientific rigor, relevance, and clarity.
    • Highlight strengths and provide constructive suggestions for improvement.
    • Identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate submissions, or conflicts of interest.
    • Submit their review within the agreed-upon timeframe.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

    • Originality: Does the manuscript provide new insights or contributions to the field?
    • Methodology: Are the research methods sound and appropriate?
    • Data and Analysis: Is the data valid, and is the analysis thorough and accurate?
    • Relevance: Does the work align with the journal’s scope and audience?
    • Structure and Clarity: Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
    • References: Are citations appropriate and accurate?

6. Peer Review Process

    1. Initial Editorial Screening: Manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial team to ensure they meet the journal’s scope and submission guidelines.
    2. Reviewer Assignment: The manuscript is assigned to two or more independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
    3. Reviewer Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations, including a clear recommendation:
      • Accept
      • Minor Revisions
      • Major Revisions
      • Reject
    4. Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewers’ feedback and the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s objectives.
    5. Revision and Resubmission: Authors are given an opportunity to address reviewer comments and resubmit their manuscript, which may undergo a second round of review if necessary.

7. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and not share them with others.
  • Impartiality: Reviews should be free of personal bias or discrimination.
  • Plagiarism and Ethical Violations: Any ethical concerns identified during the review process should be reported to the editorial team immediately.

8. Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge the valuable contributions of reviewers:

  • Certificates of appreciation are issued upon request.
  • Outstanding reviewers may be recognized on the journal’s website or invited to join the Editorial Board.

9. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe the review process was flawed. Appeals must:

  • Be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Include a detailed explanation of the perceived issue.
  • Be independently reviewed by a senior editor or external reviewer.

10. Reviewer Conduct

    • We expect reviewers to:

      • Respect deadlines to maintain an efficient review process.
      • Provide detailed and constructive feedback.
      • Avoid using privileged information gained during the review process for personal benefit.

11. Timelines for Review

  • Reviewers are given 15 days to complete their evaluation of a manuscript.
  • The editorial decision will typically be communicated to authors within 4–6 weeks of submission.

Contact Information

For questions or further details regarding the peer review process, please contact:

Vexido Publications LLP is dedicated to fostering trust, transparency, and excellence in academic publishing through a rigorous and ethical peer review process.

Journals
Register