Authors submit their manuscripts electronically. Each manuscript is reviewed by internal reviewers for relevancy to the individual journal, and notified to the authors in the abstract review form for further action.

If any issues, the Corresponding Editor will contact the Editor in Chief (or an appropriate Editor), who will decide whether the manuscript should be transferred to another journal published by us, editorially rejected owing to scope, or retained for review by the journal to which it was submitted. If retained, the manuscript is assigned to an editor, who in turn chooses one or more editorial board members or reviewers to review it.

Reviewers advise the editors of their recommendation for acceptance, modification, or rejection of the manuscript. Reviewer's recommendations are gratefully received by the editor; however, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honor every recommendation. The final decision regarding modification, acceptance, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the editor.

Publication Ethics And Malpractice Statement

The Journal and its Publisher (i-manager Publications), authors, reviewers and editors all follow the best-practices on ethical Academic Publishing.

Duties of Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief would be responsible for the scientific content of the Journal and responsible for driving the strategic direction of the Journal. The editor in chief ultimately decides whether a submitted manuscript will be published. This decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after seeking input from reviewers selected on a basis of relevant expertise.

Key Responsibilities:

• The Editor-in-Chief shall use his/her best endeavors to ensure that all contributions submitted to the Publisher for Publication in the Journal: are of good quality, relevant and in good English; are original, and do not infringe the copyright or other property rights of any other person; do not contain any scandalous, libelous, obscene, and unlawful or otherwise objectionable material.
• He/She is responsible for all the content that is approved for publishing and is often accountable for it. The publication's standards of performance depend heavily on its Editor-in-Chief. ·
• The editor-in-chief vets all of the assistant or department editors of a publication and ensures each issue is released on time. ·
• It is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief to reject a piece of writing that appears to be plagiarized or ghost written by another sub-editor. He should check that a particular piece is neither self-plagiarized, nor has been published elsewhere.
• The Editor-in-chief should cross-check all citations and examines all the references provided in the content. It's the editor-in-chief who sets and tries to implement the ethical standards. ·
• The Editor-in-Chief upholds the ethics and conflict of interest policies of i-manager Publications and works with the other editors to resolve questions of ethics in publishing in the Journal. Ethical violations may involve, but are not limited to, copyright violations, republishing, plagiarizing (including self-plagiarizing), falsification of data or results, misattribution of authors, or misattribution of citations.
• He/She examines typical items that include nature and scope of the Journal, features and enhancements, changes in the author community, time to decision, enhancements to the electronic versions, and enhancements to the Journal website. ·
• Manages the editorial aspects of the publication under a peer review process in order to publish high-quality articles consistent with accepted standards and the scope of subject areas approved for the publication. ·
• He / She examine the comments of the referees and exercise his or her best judgment, in the light of the referees' recommendations, on whether or not to publish. While this decision may be delegated to another editor of the publication, the Editor-in-Chief is ultimately accountable for the final decision. ·
• Initial appeals are handled by the Journal editor; if the situation is not resolved, an author may then appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for appeals of manuscript releases from the Journals.

Duties of Reviewers

If reviewers accept the invitation to review, they will have access to the complete manuscript and should immediately:

• ·See whether there is any conflict of interest and whether they can judge the article impartially.
• ·See through the relevant portions of the manuscript and verify that it fits within the scope of the Journal.

If they have either a time problem or a conflict of interest, they should contact the Editor for instructions regarding extending the deadline or canceling the review assignment as appropriate. If the examination reveals that the manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, they indicate that in the review form.

The manuscript provided for review is a privileged document. It has to be protected from any form of exploitation.

The Review

Positive, impartial, but critical attitude towards the manuscript under review is appreciated.

The following aspects are to be considered when reviewing a manuscript:

• Significance to the target scientific community ·
• Originality ·
• Appropriateness of the approach or experimental design ·
• Appropriateness of the statistical analyses ·
• Appropriate literature citations ·
• Adequacy of experimental techniques ·
• Soundness of conclusions and interpretation ·
• Relevance of discussion ·Organization ·
• Adherence to the Instructions to Authors ·
• Adequacy of title and abstract ·
• Appropriateness of figures and tables ·
• Appropriateness of supplemental material ·
• Length prescribed

Some of the items for which reviewers should be alert include:

• Plagiarism - Plagiarism is not limited to the Results and Discussion sections; it can involve any part of the manuscript, including figures and tables, in which material is copied from another publication without attestation, reference, or permission.
• Missing or incomplete attestation - Authors must give appropriate credit to ideas, concepts, and data that have been published previously. This is accomplished by the inclusion of references. Missing, incomplete, or incorrect references must be brought to the editor's attention. ·
• Dual submission and/or publication - Be wary of attempts to submit/publish similar material more than once. This is often difficult to detect "before the fact," but checking literature citations, as well as having a critical eye, is helpful.
• Reviewer's criticisms, arguments, and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented. Dogmatic, dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of the work are to be avoided. Reviewers are expected to substantiate the statements and suggest acceptability as noted on the specific review form.
• In comments intended for the author, they should organize the review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, and gives the overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific, numbered comments, which, if appropriate, may be subdivided into major and minor points.

Reviewer advises the Editor of their recommendation for acceptance, modification, or rejection of the manuscript. Reviewer's recommendations are gratefully received by the editor; however, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honor every recommendation. The final decision regarding modification, acceptance, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the editor.

Duties of Authors

Authors submit their manuscripts electronically via emails to the Corresponding Editor. Each manuscript is reviewed by internal reviewers for relevancy to the individual journal. If retained, the manuscript is assigned to an editor, who in turn chooses one or more editorial board members or reviewers to review it.

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by discussion of the significance of the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive.

Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that has been appropriately cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another Journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one Journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

Only persons who were involved in the intellectual part should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content. Other persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in themanuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author.

All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Authors should actively participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors' requests for data, clarifications, proof of ethics and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers' comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the Journal by the deadline given.

Authors should refrain from retracting their papers citing reasons of published elsewhere. But when authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, they should promptly notify the Journal's editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors' obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the Journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

Duties of the Publisher

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

The Publisher and the Journal do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, national origin, race, gender, career status or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.

Access to Journal Content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of all published scholarly articles and ensures continuous accessibility by partnering with other abstracting and indexing databases as well apart from maintaining their own digital archive

We do not charge any publication fee.