- The manuscript is a privileged document. It needs to be protected from any form of exploitation. Editors / reviewers are expected not to cite, refer and to refrain from using the information it embodies for the advancement of their own research;
- An editor / reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review;
- An editor / reviewer should aim at promoting a precise and effective research communication;
- An editor / reviewer who thinks that he / she is not in position to judge a particular manuscript impartially, should not select or accept it for review / refereeing;
- Review / refereeing should be carried out as per the stipulated time lines. In case it appears the deadlines are hard to meet in some specific case, publication management team should be informed accordingly. This will enable the later to take alternative measures to avoid expected delay;
- An editor / reviewer should not discuss a manuscript with its Author (s). Pezzottaite Journals Online Journal System update the author about every action being taken on their manuscript;
- The identity of editors / reviewers is kept confidential as per the policies;
- It is appropriate, not to make any statement about acceptance / rejection or revision (subject to receipt of two similar opinions on revision) on a manuscript to the author, till a final verdict is arrived at, as per the Pezzottaite Journals norms;
- The announcement of decision on acceptance / rejection rest with Pezzottaite Journals publication management team;
- We expects from the editor / reviewer to monitor the status of manuscripts and specially watch for the comments on revision, rejection and acceptance to avoid any duplication of efforts at their ends. Onward actions / decisions by the publication management team will be based on the information / comments made available by the editor / reviewer online on the web / offline through an email;
- Critical appraisal should be presented dispassionately in the comments intended for the Authors and harsh remarks avoided;
- Suggested modifications should not imply as conditions of acceptance. It is important to make distinction between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable;
- In cases, we do not accept a manuscript; the decision will be communicated to the author along with comments that might help the author to improve it. This requires providing elaborate comments (with citations, if possible); it will help the editors / reviewers to make a decision on the manuscript and the authors to improve it;
- The documentation on criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning the manuscript is to be preserved carefully. It will be quite useful for decision makers;
- Editors / reviewers are not expecting correct mistake (s) in grammar, but any assistance in this regard will be highly appreciated;
- The editors / publication management team gratefully receive a reviewer's / referee’s recommendation (s), but since the decisions are based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer / referee should not expect decision makers to honour his or her every recommendation.
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure & Conflicts of Interest
- Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author;
- Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage;
- Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers;
- Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern;
- It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations;
- Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
Involvement & Cooperation in Investigations
An editor (s) should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.