Paper Review Document
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies).
Manuscripts submitted for publication in the ICACGEA’20 will be assigned to Double stage blind peer review, not disclosing their names to the authors. The anonymity of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by reviewers. Reviewers are advised to consider the following important aspects of a manuscript when conducting the review.
Reporting of Original Results: The results reported in the manuscript must be original and authentic work of the authors. They should be devoid of any plagiarism and the material should not have been published earlier. Studies which report some reproduced results, for example a new clinical trial, may also be considered for publication.
Experiments and Analyses: Experiments and other analyses should meet the recognized technical standards and must be described systematically. The research presented in a manuscript should facilitate in reaching accurate conclusions from the statistics. Methods and experiments as well as reagents should be documented in detail.
Interpretation of Results: Authors should present and interpret the results and conclusions in an appropriate and comprehensive manner, clearly explaining the results and outcomes of their study. Incomplete interpretation of results may result in rejection of the manuscript.
Language of Composition: The manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the reviewing and editing of the manuscript. Authors should seek professional assistance for correction of grammatical, scientific and typographical errors before submission of the revised version of the article for publication.
Experiments involving Humans and Animals: The research must meet the highest applicable international standards of the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. A brief description on ethical guidelines is given in the Ethics and Malpractise Statement of ICACGEA’20.
Reporting guidelines and Community Standards for Data: The manuscript should adhere to suitable reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, MIAME, STROBE, EQUATOR) and community standards for data availability. Mnaa Pub world seeks to disseminate research and therefore stipulates that the public deposition of data is as per the followed standards (for example gene sequences, microarray expression data, and structural studies). Other similar standards that may be applicable should also be followed.
PEER REVIEW WORKFLOW
Evaluation of manuscripts is carried out by the journal’s Editors and the invited external peer reviewers according to the following procedures.
The editorial process and peer-review workflow of ICACGEA’20 are taken care of by the CONFERENCE CHAIR and TECHNICAL CHAIR who have expertise in their specific fields on recommendation by the reviers. ICACGEA’20 follows a double blind peer review process. The services of National and International Advisory Board Members are sought through invitations to organize and conduct the peer-review of a submitted manuscript, keeping in view the scope of the manuscript. Manuscripts are forwarded for evaluation to CONFERENCE CHAIR and TECHNICAL CHAIR initially and then subsequently to independent external reviewers to check if the research work presented in the manuscript falls within the scope of the conference and meets the criteria of ICACGEA’20 in terms of originality and quality.
Editors may recommend the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript by conducting the peer review themselves, based on their own knowledge and experience, or they may take assistance and advice from other experts in the field.
After review of the manuscript by at least two independent experts, in addition to the views of the Editors, the decision is relayed to the authors, which may be categorized as:
- Accept without changes
- Revisions Required
- Selection of Reviewers
The CONFERENCE CHAIR and TECHNICAL CHAIR of ICACGEA’20 together with the publication manager have the right to select reviewers for a particular manuscript considering the knowledge and experience of the reviewers.
Before sending the manuscripts to a reviewer, ICACGEA’20 seeks consent from potential reviewers about their availability and willingness to carry out a review. The correspondence between the ICACGEA’20 chairs and reviewers are kept strictly confidential. The author does not know who has conducted the review on his or her manuscript.
IMPORTANT POINTS TO CONSIDER
A review report provides the ICACGEA’20 conference chairs with an expert opinion on the quality of the manuscript under consideration. It also supplies authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers to make them acceptable for publication in the conference proceedings. Although confidential comments to the ICACGEA’20 conference chairs are not relayed to authors, any remarks that may help improve the quality of the manuscript are forwarded to the authors for their consideration. A good review report answers the following important areas:
- Is the manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved?
- Have adequate proofs been provided for the declarations?
- Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly?
- Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?
- ICACGEA’20 encourages authors to publish detailed protocols as supporting information online (e.g., Mendeley, Arxiv, etc...). Do any particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such a protocol?
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published manuscript. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Acknowledgent of Source
The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. They should consult the ICACGEA’20 conference chairs and obtain permission before consulting another colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript.
Reviewers should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone before publication of the manuscript.
The reviewers are expected to provide their reports in a timely fashion since a prompt review leads to the timely acceptance and publication of a manuscript in the ICACGEA’20 proceedings which is beneficial not only for the authors but for the scientific community as well.
Changes in Review Reports
The Editorial staff relays the comments of the reviewers on behalf of the ICACGEA’20 Conference chairs. The review reports are edited by ICACGEA’20 Conference chairs if the comments contain confidential information or these are written in a language not suitable for scholarly communication. Reviewers should include such comments in the confidential section of the review form, which is intended to be read by the editors only.
Conflict of Interest
ICACGEA’20 respects requests not to have the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have a competing interest with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for Editors to be aware of all competing interests; we therefore expect that reviewers would inform the ICACGEA’20 Conference chairs if they notice any potential competing interest during the course of review of a manuscript. Moreover, the reviewers are expected to inform the ICACGEA’20 Conference chairs if they have a conflict of interest in carrying out a review of a manuscript submitted by any author/contributor of the manuscript.