Peer Review and the Editorial policies

Table of contents

1.   Peer Review
The peer review process is an essential part of the publication process, as it measures the quality of the article of journals, ensuring and maintaining the highest standards. All articles submitted to Current Science Publishing journals undergo rigorous peer-review by qualified experts.

The Managing Editor of the journal conducts a technical pre-check of the paper as soon as it is submitted. The submission is sent to an appropriate Academic Editor, who is then asked to perform an editorial pre-check and suggest reviewers. The Academic Editor may choose to reject the paper, seek corrections prior to peer review, or proceed with the peer review process. The Editorial Office arranges the peer review, which is conducted by independent qualified experts, and compiles at least two review reports for each submission if the process is to continue. Before making a final decision, we ask authors to make sufficient revisions, including a second round of peer review if needed.

However, peer reviewers do not decide whether to reject or approve manuscripts; instead, they recommend a decision. In the Current Science Publishing, the decision-making authority lies completely with the editorial board members of all peer-reviewed journals.

An Academic Editor (Editor-in-Chief/Guest Editor of a Special Issue/ Editorial Board Member of a journal) makes the final decision. After acceptance, manuscripts are sent to the production department for galley proof (copy-editing and English editing).

The flowchart below provides an overview of the editorial and production stages that collectively comprise the Current Science Publishing publication process.

2.   Publication process

Current Science Publishing publication process.

2.1. Technical and ethical pre-check at immediate submission

The Editorial Office performs a technical pre-check after the submission of an article, which is followed by an editorial pre-check by an Academic Editor or Managing Editor.

The Editorial Office may administratively desubmit simply non-compliant submissions. Academic editors will not be held accountable for that matter, since it is simply an administrative function of the Editorial Office and is not required for editorial decisions.

The editorial office will assist with the process and may administratively desubmit non-compliant submissions but it makes no editorial decisions, which are the responsibility of the academic editor.

This preliminary screening confirms that the submission complies with the journal's publication ethical criteria and satisfies the minimal requirements for consideration by an Academic Editor.

This assessment comprises, but is not limited to:

The Editorial Office will notify the Academic Editor if potential difficulties or points of concern are identified that require additional subject expert examination. The manuscripts that do not pass the technical pre-checks to the point where they cannot be reviewed further because of serious problems or incomplete information will not be reviewed further. At this point, the Academic Editor may ask for changes or more information to determine whether the paper is suitable for a comprehensive Editorial Pre-Check.

If no significant concerns are found, the paper is assigned to a Current Science Publishing staff member in the Editorial Office, who handles the submission and serves as the main liaison among the authors, reviewers, and the Academic Editor.

The Editorial Office will prepare a list of suggested reviewers for the Academic Editor to verify before forwarding the article to the Academic Editor for an editorial pre-check. This comprises the following aspects:

All prospective reviewers must meet the journal's reviewer selection guidelines, which include expertise, freedom, independence, and conflict of interest. The Editorial Office may accept author-suggested reviewers if they do not violate the reviewer’s guidelines or interfere with the thorough assessment process.

2.2. Editorial and pre-check of verification of reviewers

The manuscript is subjected to an editorial pre-check by an academic editor. At this point, the Academic Editor evaluates whether the article satisfies the required criteria for scientific quality and fits the journal's scope.

Any real, possible, or perceived conflict of interest that emerges during the editorial process and has the potential to influence or be observed as influencing, must be disclosed by academic editors.

The Academic Editor has three options during the editorial pre-check: reject the paper, ask for changes prior to peer review, or proceed with the peer review. If the manuscript proceeds to peer review, the Academic Editor approves or changes the list of reviewers to be invited after evaluating the suitability of the reviewers suggested by the authors and the Editorial Office.

A conflict of interest would arise if a person marked as an author reviewed or made an editorial decision regarding their own submission. Academic Editors shall notify the Editorial Office as soon as any conflicts are identified by them.

2.3.      Peer review policy

Current Science Publishing’s editing approach is intended to provide a rigorous, transparent, and speedy peer review.  Peer review in Current Science Publishing journals is double-blind, where the identity of the authors and reviewers is unknown to one another. Normally, we select at least two reviewers for peer review. Peer reviewers are experts in their respective fields. Typically, we assemble a group of peer reviewers with a solid track record of generating excellent evaluations of the papers. The Academic Editor-approved reviewers are invited by the Editorial Office. For every manuscript that has been sent on to peer review, at least two review reports are gathered.

After accepting a review invitation, reviewers normally get 10–15 days to submit their review reports through our online platform.  When assessing a revised paper, reviewers are expected to submit their findings within 6-8 days. Extensions of reviewing time may be granted upon request.

The Editorial Office facilitates contact among reviewers, writers, and academic editor. Academic editors can monitor the progress of articles at any time and communicate with the Editorial Office at any step during the review process.

2.4. Confidentiality of review process

Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript's content, including the abstract, until the article is published. Additionally, reviewers should take care to avoid disclosing their identities to authors in comments or metadata for reports that are submitted in PDF or Microsoft Word format. If reviewers want a colleague to finish the review on their behalf, they must inform the Editorial Office.

Journal editorial boards analyse the report or feedback supplied by peer reviewers in an article before making a decision. The most frequent choices we make to publish an article are:

Accept as it is: Accept the article as written by the author and publish it in its original format.

Accept after minor revision: Accept the paper with minor modifications: We request the authors to make minor corrections before publication.

Accept after major revision: Accept the article after major modifications. We request the authors to make the changes recommended by the editors and/or reviewers and publish the paper after revision.

Reject and resubmit: This is a conditional rejection of the article. The journal declines to accept the article in its present form but is willing to review the article in a subsequent round of decision-making if the authors make significant changes to the article as recommended.

Reject: Even if the authors make significant changes to the article, the journal will not publish it or give it a second consideration. 

2.5.      Editorial first decision by academic editor

The Editorial Office assists the Academic Editor in evaluating the review reports through our internal tools intended to identify templated reports and possible reviewer self-citation requests. The assigned Academic Editor assesses the appropriateness of the reviewers' remarks as well as the manuscript's scientific soundness, once at least two review reports have been received. The first editorial decision must be made before the manuscript is allowed to proceed to the next stage.

The Academic Editor can decide on the authors revised manuscript. The recommendations are as follows: accept in current form, minor revision, reconsider after major revision, reject and encourage resubmission, reject, or request an additional reviewer.

2.6. Author revision and revised version review

The Editorial Office will notify the authors if the Academic Editor requests a minor modification or reconsideration following a major revision. Typically, authors are given 7 days for minor revisions and 10 days for major revisions. Extensions are given upon request.

Depending on the reviewers' suggestions and if they requested to see the updated version, revised manuscripts may or may not be sent to them. The revised paper will be provided to reviewers who suggest rejection or request major modifications. The most recent version of the manuscript is available online for all reviewers.

The Academic Editor can decide to reject and encourage the resubmission of manuscripts that need substantial improvement. After making the necessary changes, the authors may decide to submit their article to the same journal again. A new manuscript ID is assigned to the resubmitted article that is connected to the first submission. The editorial process will proceed as usual after the resubmission. The resubmitted manuscript will be reviewed by the same reviewers.

The Current Science Publishing usually allows up to two rounds of major revisions per manuscript. Additional rounds of review may be facilitated if indicated by the Academic Editor.

The journal retains the right to withdraw the submission after a certain period of inactivity if the Editorial Office is unable to keep in contact with the author during the review or production process.

2.7. Final editorial decision by academic editor

The assigned Academic Editor is solely responsible for making decisions on submitted articles to accept or reject. Before making a decision, we request the Academic Editor to consider (1) the adequateness of reviewer comments and author responses and (2) the scientific quality of the manuscript to be published in the submitted journal. The Academic Editor can accept the article in its current form, recommend minor revisions, reconsider after major revisions, reject and encourage resubmission, reject or request an additional reviewer.

The Academic Editor has the right to disagree with the Reviewers recommendations. Therefore, the Academic Editor must justify the reviewer decisions in order to benefit the authors and reviewers.

An Academic Editor may reach a decision to accept a paper notwithstanding a reviewer's recommendation that it be rejected, in certain circumstances.

Before informing the authors of the final decision, the Editorial Office will request a second independent assessment (double decision) from either the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board. The final decision is the double decision made by the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board. The authors will be subsequently notified by the Current Science Publishing personnel. The staff of the Current Science Publishing cannot decide to accept a manuscript.

2.8. Editorial freedom

We anticipate that the Academic Editor will make their decision freely based on the scientific quality of the article, selected reviewers' appropriateness, the quality of the authors' answer and the reviewers' feedback. Our independent Academic Editors evaluate every peer-reviewed item published by Current Science Publishing, and Current Science Publishing employees do not participate in editorial decisions on article acceptance.

2.9. Author appeals on rejection

Authors can contest/appeal for the rejection of their article by emailing the journal's editorial office. Appeals can only be filed after a rejection and a decline resubmission decision, and they must be filed within three months of the decision date. The appeal must include a thorough explanation, including specific answers to the reviewer's and academic editor's comments. If these requirements are not met, the appeal will not be allowed for a further review. An appointed Academic Editor will receive the article and relevant data, including referees' identities, from the Editorial Office. An advisory opinion on the article will be requested from the Academic Editor. The Editor-in-Chief will verify this suggestion. At this point, the rejection decision is fixed and cannot be changed.

2.10. Production process for publication

Once the article is accepted, the authors are not permitted to edit the main content, with the exception of layout, English grammar, and so on. If the authors wish to alter the main text, they should notify the journal’s editorial office and explain their reasoning. Based on the article and the author's responses, the article will then be sent for another round of academic decisions.

After receiving final acceptance, the article will go through expert copy-editing, English editing, author proofing, final modifications, paging, and publication on the website https://currentsci.com/. All manuscripts are produced by the publisher's internal teams, who also handle copy editing, language editing, and Word to PDF/XML conversion.

English editing service is free for all authors at the time of production process.

3.        Publication ethics

Current Science Publishing journals align with COPE's standards for Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, which address potentially unethical conduct by authors, reviewers, and editors. To manage the article, all Current Science Publishing editorial personnel are experts in COPE ethics issues. Information on updating published articles and ethical issues for submitting articles are also described in the “Guidelines for authors”.

The Editorial Office will evaluate ethical issues reported by the journal’s readers in accordance with the COPE guidelines. Disputes over the authenticity of research reported in published articles may be resolved by the editorial board. Where necessary, we will submit conflicts about authorship, data ownership, author misconduct, and so on to external bodies, such as a university ethics commission. Authors are requested to reply to any complaints raised against them.

Typically, if all authors agree, the authorship can be updated via correction. If not, we require an authoritative statement from the authors' institution(s) about who qualifies for authorship. Authorship can usually be updated with a correction if all authors accept it. If this is not possible, we require an official statement of authorship eligibility from the author's institution or institutions. We follow the COPE guidelines for ‘How to recognise potential authorship problems’ to manage authorship disputes.
 

4.        Publishing standards and guidelines

We follow the guidelines and standards for Current Science Publishing journals recommended by the following international authority.

ICMJE:
Current Science Publishing journals with a medical specialty comply with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. All Current Science Publishing journals comply with almost all guidelines, that are not specific to medical journals.

TOP 
Current Science Publishing journals follow the TOP standards of openness, transparency and reproducibility (level 1 or 2 for all aspects of TOP  research practices).

Spirit–Consort
Current Science Publishing journals follow the Spirit–Consort guidelines, which statement help to report the trial protocols and findings for randomized trials.
Before submitting the article, we request the authors to verify their article by checking the Spirit–Consort guidelines.

RISMA
Current Science Publishing journals follow the PRISMA  guidelines for writing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Before submitting the article, we request the authors to follow the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses articles.

FAIR Principles 
Current Science Publishing journals follow the FAIR Principles guidelines to improve the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reuse of digital data.

ARRIVE 
Current Science Publishing journals follow the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting in vivo experiments on animal research. We request the authors to follow the ARRIVE guidelines for in vivo animal research articles.

iThenticate:
During the pre-check, manuscript preparation, or post-publication review phases, images in research articles and raw data are screened using iThenticate. Compliance with the criteria and norms outlined above will be considered in the final judgement, and any deviations should be fully addressed by the authors. We request that the authors incorporate specific guidelines in their cover letters.