Published By:
As soon as a manuscript is received by a journal published by The Grassroots Institute, the peer review process begins. It undergoes the following steps:
All manuscripts are processed using our manual or online Manuscript Tracking System. The Editor or Editorial Assistant determines whether the manuscript fits the journal’s focus and scope. Once we receive a manuscript, our Editorial Office runs a plagiarism check (using Grammarly, Turnitin or CrossCheck, powered by iThenticate) and screens the manuscript to decide whether or not it should be sent for peer review. It is therefore very important for authors to make sure that their manuscript is well written and is of high quality. During the initial screening, our Editorial Office mainly checks the following:
Any manuscripts out of the journal’s scope or containing plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, are rejected. This step takes 3-5 days and an intimation is sent to the author whether the manuscript can be processed further or recommended to Language Service or rejected. Mostly, the manuscript is retained to proceed further. Again, a Consent Form by the author sought to proceed further if author agrees to 3 conditions: (1) pay the Article Processing Charges (APC) on completion of Peer Review Process, (2) correct and rectify the errors related to English language composition and technical content, and (3) smooth communication and prompt responses to the Editor’s messages during editing process. In case, author is unable to agree on any of the 3 conditions, he/she is free to withdraw the manuscript at this stage, as it is not possible to withdraw the manuscript once the manuscript goes into Peer Review Process.
Manuscripts not adhering to journal guidelines is returned to authors without scientific evaluation. Submitted manuscripts adhering to journal guidelines are reviewed by the reviewers.
After manuscripts clear the initial screening, they are sent to Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief or Executive/Technical Editor assigns manuscripts to Editorial Assistant. The Editorial Assistant sends the manuscript to a minimum of 2 reviewers for double blind peer review. The peer review process is an essential element of the publication cycle. All manuscripts submitted to our journals will undergo extensive peer review process. Flow diagram in Figure 1 is the editorial workflow that all submitted manuscripts undergo.
Normally, within 2-3 weeks, the reviewers submit the evaluation results along with their recommendations as one of the following actions:
We generally identify the same-interest area scientists, researchers and experts as potential Peer Reviewers for a particular manuscript. Accordingly, we send the manuscript, review form and necessary guiding notes to 4-6 identified potential Peer Reviewers. On our request, minimum 2 of them agree to review the manuscript thoroughly and give their feedback/comments in the Review Form. There are 2 types of Review Forms: one is detailed and one is short; some Reviewers do not agree to spare more time and they pick up the short version of the Review Form. Some of the Peer Reviewers decline our request; sometimes all of them decline requests or do not respond at all. In such circumstances, after waiting for 1 week, we identify another set of Peer Reviewers and send the same manuscript to them. The review process completes only when we have 2 reports from a minimum of 2 Reviewers. On average, we receive 2-3 reports from 2-3 Reviewers. In addition, we keep a pool of Peer Reviewers on varied topics and those Peer Reviewers are associated with each journal separately. Normally, they join for 2-3 years initially, but the period is usually extended, and hence they continue serving as Peer Reviewers until they resign or dissociate from their voluntary role. While sending a manuscript for Peer Review, the ratio of Peer Reviewers is 0:3-4, 1:2 or 1:3 or 2:6, or 1:4. It means, the Peer Reviewer from our pool of Reviewers cannot be more than 1 for a manuscript. The other Reviewers are always identified randomly from outside. While recruiting the Peer Reviewers for our pool, we generally assess their academic works, interest areas, and number of peer-reviewed publications (minimum 6). We provide Certificate to corresponding Reviewers upon publication of the manuscript or journal's issue. It is also provided if the manuscript was rejected. For the utmost anonymity, we do not publish the names of Reviewers along with the published article; yet, the Review Reports and author's compliance report are put as zip attachment on the web along with the published article. We also have a practice to attach as zip the Editing Work and Ethical Declarations along with the published articles.
We have a double blinded peer-review process in which neither the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are, nor the authors have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are. Our journal acknowledges the researchers who have performed the peer-review and without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible. We try our best to adhere to the guidelines laid out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also forward the guidelines to our reviewers to ensure the highest ethical standards of evaluation.
The Reviewer Report (Comments) is an MS Word document, which is filled and commented. It contains title of the article but does not contain the identity details of the reviewer. Reviewer’s identity is kept anonymous. It is because Reviewers’ Report is shared with the author(s) for the purpose of improving their manuscript. This Reviewer’s Report can be uploaded in online system, only if the author(s) permit. Reviewers are given 2-3 weeks to write their review. In certain cases, extension can be granted upon request to the Reviewers.
All the reviewers are facilitated and guided to follow certain roles and responsibilities during the process of peer review. Please read the information available on the link.
On what grounds and technical variables a manuscript needs to be evaluated by the reviewer are well explained under this section. The reviewers are guided and assisted to conduct a fair and qualitative review of a manuscript. Such guidelines for reviewers can be read under FOR REVIEWERS section.
In order for the Editor to provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript, at least 2 completed reviews are required. Once the reviewers have submitted their comments, the Editor will then arrange to send the article to the corresponding author along with Reviewers’ Reports and her/his own recommendation, if any. The Editor delivers and informs the author of the final decision too. If the manuscript is conditionally accepted, author(s) is/are required to revise his/her/ their manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and Editor’s suggestions and submit a revised version of his/her/ their manuscript for further evaluation. We ensure high quality and unbiased peer-review by sending the manuscript for evaluation to a range of reviewers in different parts of the world.
In all the cases ‘except rejection’, the author(s) are asked to pay the APC as specified or suggested by the journal.
Figure 1: Review Process
Go to Top
