Peer Review Process
JSAU is a double blind peer review journal. After submission, a preliminary review of the manuscript will be performed by the editorial board. If the editorial board give the preliminary acceptance, it would be sent to two reviewers for blind peer review. Final decision will be made by the opinion of two reviewers. Four types of decisions can be made by them –
- Accepted after major correction
- Accepted after minor correction
- Accepted (with no change of manuscript)
If the manuscript is accepted with minor/major correction, it would be returned to corresponding author to perform necessary correction according to the reviewer’s comment and author will resubmit the manuscript within 7 (seven) days. Finally Chief Editor will be review the manuscript for final edit and manuscript will be available in website as a accepted article.
Note: Manuscripts may be rejected on ethical grounds if the severity of the experimental procedure does not appear to be justified by the value of the work performed.
Online First Policy
Just after the final edit by the chief editor the manuscript will be available in online as a accepted article.
Open Access Policy
Reader can access to all the articles of this journal for free of cost.
Policy for Plagiarism
Executive Editor/s will perform a preliminary check of the manuscript by searching on the internet. Manuscript seems subjected to plagiarism will not be considered for further process and rejected immediately. However, if Member of Editorial Board/Editorial Office receive any complaint about an article after publication, the board will communicate the corresponding author regarding this issue. If corresponding author failed to give satisfactory explanation, article will be removed from the site immediately and that author will be banned permanently. A short summary of every such case will also be published on journal website for the readers.
- Publication decisions: The Editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published. The Editor will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors’ race, sexual orientation, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal’s scope. Legal requirements regarding copyright infringement, plagiarism and other related issues should also be considered.
- Confidentiality: The Editor and any member of the Editorial Team 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 and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the Editor or the members of the Editorial Team for their own research purposes.
- Contribution to editorial decisions: The peer-reviewing process assists the Editor and the Editorial Team in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.
- Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and withdraw from the review process.
- Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor.
- Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author should be avoided. They should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source.
- Disclosure and conflict of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.
- Reporting standards: Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the research. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
- Data access and retention: Under special circumstances authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study for Editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
- Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: In general, papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted.
- Originality, plagiarism and others: Authors will submit only entirely original works, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.