GUIDELINES

Author Guide Lines :

Manuscript Templates

Note: Each submission must contain a cover letter and a Manuscript document.

Submissions: All the articles must be submitted to the email: submissions@bibliotics.org. All the manuscripts submitted should be in the Word (docx, doc format) or PDF format. There is no page limit concerned to the length of the manuscript.

Peer Review Processing: All the articles submitted will undergo double-blind peer review processing to meet the international standards. The editor handles the complete editorial process of the articles and peer reviewers remain anonymous to the authors. Editor decisions are strictly followed for quality publications.

Quality Control: Our quality control team will help to analyze the quality of the manuscripts as per international standards. Plagiarism is a crime, thus avoid plagiarism as we aim to harbor the Journal free from the malpractice.

Editor Guidelines

The Editors greatly contribute to the Journal prestige and consistently improve the Journal standards by handling thorough peer review. It is very important for the editor to choose the right reviewer for the enhancement of the manuscript quality. Review comments are considered, however the Editor’s decision remains final. All papers submitted follow peer review processing and it is the Editor’s responsibility to provide decision based on novelty and quality. The Editor should determine whether a submitted manuscript is appropriate for the journal.

Assigning Reviewers: The Editor first evaluates the manuscripts received from the Editorial office. In exceptional cases where the manuscripts remain outstanding which is usually rare, the Editor may accept at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are either done so for plagiarism and/or scientifically flawed. The Editors need to provide the reasons to reject a manuscript as they will be returned to authors. If the author mentions any suggested peer reviewers, they need to be considered first. Editors should guide reviewers with the Reviewer guidelines and the Review form. The received review comments will be directed to the Editor for final decision by the Editorial office.

Timelines: 
Editor to assign Reviewer: 3 days 
Reviewer to provide comments: 10 days 
Editor to provide final decision: 3 days 
Decision Making: The decision made should be unbiased and the Editor will determine the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers, and the Editor’s own assessment of the manuscript. In rare cases authors are allowed to contact the Editor if the amendments are unclear. The Editor should be sure about not disclosing the reviewer details. Punctuality in time should be maintained.

Major Revision: Major revisions are sent back to the author and the timeline provided will be 10 days for revision. Review comments along with if any Editor comments will be sent to the authors for revision. Minor Revision: Minor revisions are sent back to the author and the timeline provided will be 5-7 days for revision.Review comments along with if any Editor comments will be sent to the authors for revision.

Accept with no changes: Manuscripts that are accepted without changes are accepted if the Editor accepts to publish. Editor’s Contribution to the Journal: The Editor should be active and participate in providing new ideas or suggestions to improve the standards of the Journal. The Editor should submit Perspectives (Editorial) twice a year to support the Journal issues and also provide an impact of the advancements happening around the globe as per their research interests. The Editor should encourage publication of peer-reviewed research and technological advances in the path of enlightening new discoveries. The editor should encourage the submission of quality articles to the journal by personally recruiting authors, assisting them with outreach, and ensuring the marketing plan is executed. The Editor should recruit high profile reviewers for reviewer database using multiple sources, e.g., personal recommendations, Web databases, published choice review or anything as such. The Editorial office will always support Editors in any manner required.

Review GuideLine

Reviewers play a vital role in judging the quality of submitted manuscripts along with the support of Editorial Board Members through Peer-Review process. EB members are requested to handle the submitted manuscripts based on their research expertise. They can accomplish the peer review process themselves; based on their own knowledge and experience or they can assign this task to reviewers. The assigned reviewers are supposed to submit their comments to the Editorial office by inclining to one of the below decision, the final decision maker is the assigned EB member. The identity of the reviewers should never be revealed out to the authors at any time either during the process of review or after its publication. The papers should not be assigned to other people without Editors permission. Reviewers comments should support one of the below-mentioned acts.

  • Accept • Minor revision • Major revision • Reject
Reviewer Instructions

Unbiased Comments: The Peer review comments provided by reviewers must be transparent, unbiased and should not involve personal or professional conflicts.
Quality of article: The comments given reviewer must relevant and support to increase the quality of manuscript. Minor corrections like grammatical errors can be corrected by reviewer itself. Be specific and detail while providing comments.

Timely decision: Based on the publication date of the manuscript the comments from reviewer are expected to be within the time period assigned by the Editorial office. The review period allotted for reviewer is ten days. Reviewers can request editorial office if they need to extend the review period.
Timeline: 10 days for Research/Review/Case Reports

07 days for Short Reports

Confidential Comments: Given comments strictly confidential should not let to others (Authors) except Editorial office. Never reveal the assigned paper’s results or videos/images or any of the supplementary material to nonreviewers. Reviewers are requested not to use any information of the assigned data unless they have the written statement of the authors.

Propose new idea: Reviewer can suggest new ideas to authors to insert in the manuscript which would enhance quality of the article.

Points to be noted

  • Infrequently you will be assigned to review submissions from non-English native language authors, in that cases, it will also be imperative for a reviewer to differentiate between the quality of the manuscript and the quality of the ideas that the manuscript put across. These manuscripts may be good even if they are not articulated well.
  • Please mention the proper and reasons to reject the article like what are the weak points and the area to be improved further.

Any kind of conflicts can be resolved at editorial office • Reviewers would be provided with benefits like concession on processing fee while submitting the manuscript