Editorial Policies
The Journals of Athenaeum Scientific Publishers carefully agrees to the ethical equity and morals, and would in like manner direct a legitimate review whenever required dependent upon the situation. The journal ensures recreating or advancing does not affect the decision of the editors.
All research articles, review articles, case reports, and case series published in our journals undergo full peer review by editors and reviewers. We only publish articles which are approved by well qualified researchers with an expertise in a field appropriate for the article.
Editorial Progress
Reviewers Roles & Responsibilities
Confidentiality: Reviewers should not share any information from an assigned original copy with untouchables without the earlier consent from the Editor or save the information from a doled out composition.
Capability: Reviewer with an appropriate expertise should finish the survey. Doled out reviewer with deficient mastery should feel mindful and may decline for the process as it is assumed that commentator will be a specialist in the individual field.
Productive Evaluation: Reviewer remarks should mention positive parts of the article, along with mentioning the negative angles as well valuably, and demonstrate the improvement required. A reviewer should clarify and bolster their judgment in an obvious way that Editors and Authors can understand the statement of the remarks. The reviewer need to ensure that a perception or contention that has been recently announced be joined by an applicable reference and should promptly caution the Editor when the person gets mindful of copy production. A commentator should not do any sort of changes damaging language while commenting on an article. Judgment on every article should be done without any bias or an individual perception by the assigned reviewer.
Fair-mindedness and Integrity: Reviewer’s choice ought to exclusively rely upon logical legitimacy, importance to the subject, extent of the diary instead of money related, racial, ethnic source and so forth of the creators.
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest: To the degree practical, the reviewer needs to limit the conflict of interest. In such circumstance, reviewer needs to inform the editor explaining the whole situation.
Practicality and Responsiveness: Reviewer is abiding ethically to give the remarks within the stipulated time and be dynamic enough in reacting to the inquiry raised by the editor assuming any. Editor and Editorial Board members has a responsibility to keep up the respectability of the submitted work, whenever needed by publishing errata or adjustments recognizing anything of noteworthiness, withdrawals, and articulations of worry as fast as could reasonably be expected. Editorial manager must follow the strategy rules gave by the publisher and fulfil the duties presented to with integrity.
Review Process: An onus lies on the shoulders of editors for observing and ensuring the decency, practicality, painstaking quality, and affability of the friend survey article process. Convenient proposal to the respective journals for covering pertinent and huge point by the Editor is fundamental for the development of the journal.
Towards Readers and Scientific Community
• To make sure that the information given in the original copy is readable.
• To assess all compositions to such an extent that they are covering the scope of the journal.
• Maintain the journals inner respectability by proposing the rectifications, managing withdrawal, supplemental information and so on.
• Working with the publisher to draw in the best original copies and research which will hold any importance to readers.
• Ensure that everyone engaged with the publication procedure comprehend that it is unethical to manipulate citations.
Journal Role
• Decision-Making: He/she is qualified for taking the final decision in consultation with reviewers or from the editorial board members.
• Impartiality: An Editor should to evaluate the submitted manuscript for the information with no predisposition towards race, sex, sexual direction, strict conviction, ethnic starting point, citizenship, or political way of thinking of the authors.
• Confidentiality: The Editor or any Editorial staff should not unveil any data about a submitted original copy to anybody other than the comparing authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other
editorial advisers, and the publisher, as depending upon the need and phase of processing.
Publisher’s Role
Journal publications by Athenaeum Scientific Publishers are following rigorous peer review procedure to bring the ongoing and novel logical data at its most ideal mode. As a publisher, the accompanying strategies are being considered:
• Supporting time bound and fair Peer review process with the significant sources of inputs and from the eminent Editors and Reviewers.
• The publisher clings to the rules and strategy intended to guarantee the unbiased and best practice followed by the industry.
• Making valuable suggestions for improving the general procedure alongside better creation support and worldwide dispersal of the published information in the journal.
• The publisher promises the smooth working of the web improvement, web the executives, web based life the board for diaries and articles with the assistance of the staff individuals.
• With the vision to make scientific information “Open Access” Athenaeum Scientific Publishers is endeavoring towards structuring and propelling inventive approaches to grandstand.
Malpractice and Misconduct
Athenaeum Scientific Publishers will investigate allegations of misconduct both before and after publication. Corrections or retractions will be published if necessary, in order to maintain the integrity of the academic record. The Athenaeum Scientific Publishers Editorial Office should be contacted immediately on suspicions of misconduct. We investigates allegations made on social media or other relevant websites as we become aware of them.
