Our Chief Editor/ Assistant Editor & Managing Editor scrutinizes (Peer Review - First screening) of IJPBS of all submitted documents like manuscripts, cover letters, texts, figures like charts, tables and annexures submitted for publication in the Journal. This first screening includes ensure of reference style, within the scope of the journal, basic science relevance, basic structure viz: abstract, keyword, introduction etc. If the need for any changes is realized, authors are intimated about the requirements for the change. After relevant changes are made the authors have to resubmit the required documents. Assistant editor also checks for the content and concept of the manuscript and give his comment.

If the manuscript does not meet the required standard or if it is out of the scope of the IJPBS, it will be rejected. First screening acceptance does not guarantee complete acceptance as the comments from the following peer review needs to be rectified by the author which will be sent later.

Following this and on First screening acceptance for the peer review , the manuscript will be sent to at least one Associate Editor (for subject Review), one or more Advisory Editor (for Subject and content Review) , and not less than 2 Reviewer in our Reviewer Pannel . Simultaneously, the manuscript will be also sent to not less than 15 peer reviewers (Specific Reviewers) who are not in either our Editorial Board or our reviewer panel but currently /recently have worked /published articles very much close to the title and aim of the manuscript. This is to ensure very close review to the manuscript. We approach this specific reviewers and request for peer review until we receive comments from these peer reviewers. This we do to evaluate the submitted manuscript for its recentness , need of the study , usage of apt methodology , precise interpretation of results with satisfactory discussion of the result etc..

Reviewers are expected to be prompt in fulfilling all the requirements to complete their assignments. They must cooperate with the Editorial office in sticking to deadlines. They have to record their comments and suggestions in the given space in the manuscript.

The reviewer are requested to make a fair and objective review of all the aspects expected of a research manuscript like, content, originality, relevance of the findings, data analysis and interpretation etc, offering constructive criticism and useful suggestions and recommendations. English language, grammatical error etc should also be considered by the reviewer for the suitability of the manuscript.please refer "For Reviewers" in our journal home page for further details

In order to facilitate an unbiased fair review of the manuscript, we follow double blind peer review process where, the identities of the peer reviewers and the authors are not disclosed to each other. Strict confidentiality is maintained in this regard until the manuscript is accepted and published. Only after publishing the manuscript, the list of reviewers would be published. The reviewer comments are sent to the author for revision or rectification and would be expected to sent back to the reviewer .This takes place until reviewer gives approval for the manuscript (with or without condition statement). Then the manuscript would be sent to the editor in chief/managing editor (Second screening) with the reviewer comments (with conditions (if any) and author rectification and it is at this stage the final acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is decided, based on the comments of the peer review. On final acceptance of the manuscript ,acceptance intimation would be sent to the author without much delay, but on rejection , editor in chief can decide to send the manuscript to another 2 reviewers (Reviewer 4 and reviewer 5) and if both accepts, the manuscript would be accepted for publication , but if both or either one of them rejects, the manuscript would be rejected and returned to the author with comments for rejection. In case the author is not satisfied with the decisions of the reviewers they are entitled to appeal against it with proper reasons and explanation for why the manuscript can be accepted. The editor in chief decides on reconsidering for second peer review process based on the author’s reasons and explanation.

Once the manuscript is finalized and all the review comments been rectified to the satisfaction of both the reviewer and editor , a pre-print proof with possible DOI is sent to the author for final proof correction and approval.

After proof corrections are done by the author on the final version (Preprint Proof) of the manuscript, the manuscript is formatted as PDF files for publication. We try our best to peer review screen the manuscript from submission till publication and any time if the manuscript is found defective in its content/breaching of embargo/unethical practice of the author etc, then rectification/explanation would be requested from the author and if not suitably rectified/explain, then the manuscript would be held from publishing.please refer COPE FLOW charts and infographics - Full set - English https:doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26 version 2 : March 2021

Screening Guidelines:

All reviewers, editorial board members selected for the peer review process for the respective manuscript will be sent “screening guidelines”. This guidelines helps to review the manuscript for any error or lacuna or technical/scientific/logic etc requisite. Reviewers are also free to review more than these screening guidelines provide but they are expected to review towards error free manuscript.

Editor “Manuscript screening guidelines”

All members of the Editorial Board will follow the Manuscript screening guidelines. This is the key for an effective editorial process to be followed uniformly by all the members of the board. Details of this “Manuscript screening guidelines” are available only for the members.