Guidelines for Editors

The assigned editors from our editorial board are responsible for checking the fitness of the articles according to the scope of the respective journal, selecting the reviewers for peer review, conducting the peer review themselves(where required) and checking the finally revised manuscript by the authors for any technical or grammatical errors to ensure quick and accurate publications.

They should ensure that all the articles follow the publication and editorial policies of Zeal Press. Editors can reject the manuscript if plagiarism is detected, ethical codes are violated or the article does not fall under the scope of the journal.

When managing the peer-review process, editors are expected to select appropriate referees whose qualifications and area of expertise match the topic of the concerned article. Preferably 2 referees should be selected for this process, within a week. Our database is constantly being updated with potential reviewers. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though the editors are not obliged to use these recommendations.

The editors retain the final decision authority about accepting, rejecting or sending the article back to author for revision. They must be careful to make their decisions diligently based on suggestions and comments of the reviewers. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought by the editor. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet the journals’ criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations. Editors’ final decisions should be well-justified and clearly explained for better understanding of the author, especially if a manuscript is not accepted for publishing. They are also supposed to reply the concerned queries from the authors regarding this matter.

Manuscripts sent back for revision are returned to the initial editors/ referees. It’s to be noted that the revised versions shouldn’t be accepted unless they meet our demands and quality standards. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript. Usually the authors are given one chance for revision but in some cases the Editor-in-Chief or the editors can make an exceptional decision of allowing a third round of review based on the rarity of the manuscript, or for being exceptionally interesting for the readers.

For further guidance in editorial working according to the COPE’s policies please see https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/COPE_G_A4_SG_Ethical_Editing_May19_SCREEN_AW-website.pdf