The journal editorial process strictly follows a systematic editorial process embedding a quality control mechanism. The journal will not accept or publish manuscripts without a prior peer review process. All the submitted manuscripts will be handled by one of the academic editors and peer reviewed by two or more external reviewers from the same field as the authors. Subsequently, the academic editors of the journal will take an unbiased and independent editorial decision. The editorial office respects and relies on the expertise of academic editors for maintaining the high-quality publications in the Journal of Natural Sciences and Mathematics.

 

Editorial Policy:

The manuscript is accepted for publication on the understanding that:

• The work is not previously published or under consideration for publication elsewhere.   
• It is read and approved by all the involved authors.
• The Editors reserve the right to make any necessary editorial and literary corrections.
• Any opinions expressed or policies advocated do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the journal’s Editors.

 

The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online review system. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes the following editorial workflow during the course of the peer-review process:

  

1. Pre-Check

Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, the manuscript is subjected to the initial reviewing and will be checked by the journal’s editorial office (the Executive Editor and Editorial Secretary on basis of the subject expertise) to ensure the following: Manuscript meets the selection standards of the journal and is of interest to the journal’s readership

• Compliance with the journal guidelines and prerequisites  
• The study fits the scope of the journal
• Files are complete and that the relevant metadata are in order
• The manuscript must pass the plagiarism check

If the manuscript is not deemed suitable, it can be rejected at this stage. If the manuscript is approved, it is then sent for peer review.

 

2. Peer Review

Two to three external peer reviewers, who are experts on the subject matter of the study, will be invited to provide a peer-review report of the manuscript.

As the journal follow the blind review policy, all the identifying information about the authors will be removed from the submission by the managing editorial board.

The Academic Editor performs an initial assessment before inviting a number of potential reviewers to provide a peer-review report. (The Academic Editor can reject a manuscript prior to review if not deemed suitable.)

 

3. Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by discussion between the Executive Editor and Editorial Secretary has to be approved by the Editor-in-Chief, or in case the latest requested, by the whole editorial board that will issue a collective decision.

On the basis of the submitted reports one of the following recommendations is reached:

• Reject
• Consider after Major Changes
• Consider after Minor Changes
• Accept in its current form

If the recommendation is “Reject,” the authors are sent the review reports that have been received and are notified that their manuscript will no longer be considered for publication in the journal.

 

If the recommendation is “Consider after Major Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit an updated version of their manuscript with the necessary changes suggested by the reviewers. This might require new data to be collected or substantial revision of the text. Revision should accompany an item-wise repose to reviewer comments. The manuscript is then reassessed by one or more of the original reviewers before a new recommendation is made.

 

If the recommendation is “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Minor revision should also accompany an item-wise repose to reviewer comments. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, optionally having sought further advice from one or more of the original reviewers, it could be then recommended to “Publish Unaltered”.

 

If the recommendation is “Accept in its current form,” the manuscript will undergo a final check by the journal’s editorial office in order to ensure that the manuscript and its review process adhere to the journal’s guidelines and policies. Once done, the authors will be notified of the manuscript’s acceptance.

 

In case manuscript changes is requested the authors will be informed with the due time of the re-submission and a reminder will be sent to the corresponding author one week before the end of the due time