About IJSC

Peer Review Process

1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This could be usually via an email to submission@ijsc.net OR indianassociationofyoga@gmail.com.

2. Editorial Office Assessment
The Editorial office checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
The EIC checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

4. EIC Assigns an Associate Editor (AE)
Our journals have Associate Editors who handle the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.

5. Invitation to Reviewers
The associate editor sends invitations to individuals that they believe would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 2 for IJOYAS and IJSC.

6. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review is Conducted
The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision with their respective comments (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

9.The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

10. An Editor’s Perspective
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

There is no submission charges for the review / original article. Researchers can send their article on given email address.

1. Data fabrication and falsification: Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually do the study but faked the data. Data falsification means the researcher did the experiment, but then changed or modified some of the data or findings.
2. Plagiarism: Taking the ideas and work of other scientists without giving them credit is unfair and dishonest. Copying even one sentence from someone else’s manuscript, or even one of your own that has previously been published, without proper citation, is considered plagiarism—use your own words instead. Paraphrasing is also considered Plagiarism.
3. Multiple submissions: It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Doing this wastes the time of editors and peer reviewers, and can damage the reputation of the authors and the journals if published in more than one journal as the later publication will have to be retracted.
4. Redundant publications (or ‘salami’ publications): This means publishing many very similar manuscripts based on the same experiment. Combining your results into one very robust paper is more likely to be of interest to a selective journal. Editors are likely to reject a weak paper that they suspect is a result of salami slicing.
5. Improper author contribution or attribution: All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all its claims. Don’t forget to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians. Do not “gift” authorship to those who did not contribute to the paper. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has detailed guidelines on authorship that are useful for scientists in all fields: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Many journals have tools and processes in place to identify researchers that engage in unethical behavior. If you are caught your manuscript may be rejected without review and your institution informed along with that we throw the author’s name in the blacklist bin for our Journal for future references.