PEER REVIEW POLICY

Peer review policy is instituted to ensure that papers with good scholarly quality are published. Our journal is committed to speedy evaluation and publication of papers that are accepted. The policy is as follows:

» All research articles, and most other article types, published in Sadvidya journals undergo peer review. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers.

» All submissions to Sadvidya are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by an Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor himself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

» A minimum of Two Peer reviewers are made for each manuscript. But in some exceptional circumstances, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor will make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s) are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out.

» Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly with respect to the appropriateness of methods used, accuracy of evaluation of data and the conclusions well supported by the evidences. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria.

» Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties.

» Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s) or else; such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.

» In the rare, exceptional, occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using only one report.

» Editor should sign the review to ensure transparency in the peer review process.

» The Editor's decision on the choice of peer reviewers is final.

» Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.

a) Decision

Based on the review report, the Editorial Board will make decision on: Rejection; Resubmission after minor modifications, to address specific areas of concern; Resubmission after major alterations, to address significant gaps; or Acceptance.

b) Revision of Manuscript

The changes in manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer, shall be intimated to the author along with the review report, with a deadline. New manuscript shall be sent back to the original reviewer or to a new reviewer, at the discretion of the Editorial Board. Revised manuscript shall highlight the changes made in response to the review report.

c) Acceptance and Publication

Once the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the proof shall be sent to the author, for acceptance and approval after minor corrections, if required. The print shall carry the dates of submission and date of acceptance.