Single Blind peer review is our standard. However authors can prefer Double blind peer review by excluding their names and affiliations details form the manuscript and provide them only in the cover letter if they prefer to do so.

• The submitted research paper is settled for publication after two Peer Reviewers positive consent as a fundamental segment.
• The parameters for the Reviewers to review the papers
  • The decency
  • Logical procedure
  • Academic quality
  • Significance
  • Remark on the legitimacy
  • Decide the inventiveness of the work in view of the amount it propels the field.
• The utmost Secrecy is maintained during reviewing process of the submitted paper except the editorial board of the journal.
• The utmost preference is imparted on the original work. The withdrawal of any research paper stands in the event of instances of the remarks and comments towards defamation and/or any lawful condition and intellectual property and/or plagiarized content, even after post publication and such declaration is published in its consequent issue.
• It is guaranteed that two subject experts will analyze the submitted research papers. The approval of selecting and modifying the expected correction including the remarks and comments towards defamation and/or any lawful condition and intellectual property and/or plagiarized content, the editor can have the general power of setting aside such data or the whole paper.
• Retraction and correction are performed after being noticed by editor and/or any other person; it will be published with retraction and correction. It stands obligatory for the author to inform such retraction and correction
• Reviewers ought not to consider the submitted research work in which they have irreconcilable situations coming about because of aggressive, synergistic, or different connections or associations with any of the creators, organizations, or establishments associated with the papers.

• Assigning papers for review appropriate to each reviewer's area of interest and expertise
• Establishing a process for reviewers to ensure that they treat the manuscript as a confidential document and complete the review promptly
• Informing reviewers that they are not allowed to make any use of the work described in the manuscript or to take advantage of the knowledge they gained by reviewing it before publication
• Providing reviewers with written, explicit instructions on the journal's expectations for the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of their reviews to promote thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work
• Requesting that reviewers identify any potential conflicts of interest and asking that they recuse themselves if they cannot provide an unbiased review
• Allowing reviewers appropriate time to complete their reviews

• Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer's opinion
• Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work's composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal's readers
• Avoiding personal comments or criticism
• Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper