Normally, the editor should review the papers to see whether they meet the minimum requirements for journal publication. Manuscripts are often rejected by the editor without peer review. The usual explanation for this procedure is that the document is
- • Beyond the limits of the journal
- • Fails to meet the journal's quality requirements
- • Sparse novelty and low technological standards
The decision of the editors to refuse or approve the publication of a manuscript should be based on the importance, originality and consistency of the manuscript and its relation to the task of the journey.
Editor’s Duties toward Authors
- • Giving formatted guidelines to author for developing and submitting manuscripts.
- • Offering lucid disclosure on policies of journal on authorship ethicality.
- • Providing constant care and support towards authors with Legitimacy, Politeness, Equality, Loyalty and Clarity.
- • Fortifying author’s sensitive work source.
- • Informing authors to carry out standard Journal policy morals.
- • Providing implicit peer review on time.
- • Giving editorial decisions swiftly.
- • Conveying complete editorial schemes and standards clearly.
- • Deploying an efficient way for reconsidering editorial selection.
Editor’s Duties toward Reviewers
- • Supplying standard instructions for peer reviewing of manuscripts.
- • Organizing a review process to ensure that the manuscript is considered as undisclosed document and peer review is accompanied promptly.
- • Allocating papers for review on basis of reviewer’s area of enthusiasm and proficiency.
- • Giving clear journal policy guidelines for reviewers
- • Providing sufficient time to the reviewers for their review reports.
- • Seeking reviews on justifiable intervals.
- • Developing ways to recollect and pinpoint the contribution of reviewers. .