Editorial Policy and Guidelines

This is a privileged area for CELS's editors. Editors log-in and get full control over the selection and review process.


This is a privileged area for CELS's editors. Editors log-in and get full control over the selection and review process. 

Editor’s management module facilitates, management of manuscripts, from their Section of Unassigned, selection for review, detailed review (Editing), assigning them to referees/ seeking their comments, providing comments, to the final decision making on acceptance, revision and rejection. Editors may share their views with the referees and the CELS’ Publication management team.

CELS's Journals Editorial board comprises of experts/ professionals who, on formal invitation from CELS Journal’s have kindly consented to represent the CELS Journal’s for providing their valued editing/ review services, and guide/ support the Publication management team of the CELS Journal‘s.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewer

As a guardian of the research records a peer reviewer plays an important role in maintaining the integrity of the record. Peer review in its all form is important for the scientific community and it is a duty of the reviewer to adhere themselves to the highest standard of publication ethics. Reviewers are in a unique position to encourage the conduct of good research through their policies and processes. Peer reviewers play an important role in the review process and the process depends largely on the trust and requires everyone involved in the process to behave responsibly and ethically. The aim of this document is to set a standard guidelines to which a reviewer should adhere to during the process of reviewing. It is hoped that these guidelines will be helpful in fostering a responsible conduct of research.

Basic principle to which reviewer should adhere to

  • Always agree to review those articles that falls under your area of expertise and of
    which you can carry out a review in a timely manner.
  • A reviewer should always respect the confidentiality of the peer review and should in
    any circumstances disclose the content of the manuscript and the review process,
    except that is disclosed by the journal.
  • A reviewer should not use the information from the review process or the
    manuscript for his or for any organizations advantage or disadvantage and should
    not discredit others under any circumstances.
  • The reviewer should seek advice of the journal whenever it is necessary and should
    always declare all conflict of interest that arise during the process.
  • A reviewer should never work under the influence of the color, gender, nationality or
    religious or political beliefs of an author.
  • A reviewer should be constructive in remarks and should not hostile and should
    refrain themselves from making derogatory remarks.
  • A reviewer should provide journal with all the necessary and correct information
    about himself and impersonating someone is considered serious misconduct.

Expectations during review process

  • It is the responsibility of the reviewer to reply in a timely manner especially in case if
    they cannot review the manuscript in the stipulated time.
  • A reviewer should always notify the journal in case he don’t have the subject
    expertise required to review the manuscript, they should also provide the journal
    with the area of expertise.
  • On agreeing to review a manuscript, they you do that in a timely manner and should
    inform the journal as soon as possible for any delay.
  • A Reviewer should always highlight any potential conflict of interest that may arise,
    and should seek advice of the journal if they feel that they are unsure of the
  • A reviewer should review a manuscript afresh if the manuscript have been submitted
    again or if it has been already reviewed by some other journal.
  • A reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if he is unable to provide an
    unbiased review and should not accept the manuscript just for the sake of getting a
    sight of it.

During Review Process

  • A reviewer should notify the journal as soon as he discovers a conflict of interest or
    anything that might prevent them from giving an unbiased result.
  • Do not associate others with the review of the manuscript without obtaining
    permission, however if they do associate someone in reviewing process they should
    give their names and review, and try to give credits for their efforts.
  • A reviewer should ensure that the review is not based on the personality of the
    author or is not influenced and is purely based on the originality and quality of
    content of the manuscript.
  • A reviewer should not contact the author without the permission of the journal.

While Preparing Report

  • It should be noted that managing editor is looking at them for knowledge, fair
    judgment, an honest review an assessment of strength and weakness in the
  • Should always state sound reason for rejecting a manuscript and should not reject a
    manuscript under any influence other than the originality of work.
  • A reviewer should not make derogatory remarks to the author and maintain the
    standard of ethics.
  • Be clear and suggest any further investigation if necessary to the managing editor of
    the journal

Editorial Policy 

The manuscript is a privileged document. It needs to be protected from any form of exploitation. Editors/ reviewers are expected not to cite, refer and to refrain from using the information it embodies for the advancement of their own research.

  • CELS Journals An editor/ reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review.
  • CELS Journals An editor/ reviewer should aim at promoting a precise and effective scientific communication.
  • CELS Journals An editor/ reviewer who thinks that he/she is not in position to judge a particular manuscript impartially, should not select or accept it for review/ refereeing.
  • CELS Journals Review/ refereeing should be carried out as per the stipulated time lines. In case it appears the deadlines are hard to meet in some specific case, CELS Journals publication management team should be informed accordingly. This will enable the later to take alternative measures to avoid expected delay.
  • CELS Journals An editor/ reviewer should not discuss a manuscript with its Author/s. CELS Journal (s) Online Journal system updates Author about every action being taken on their manuscript.
  • CELS Journals The identity of editors/ reviewers is kept confidential as per the policies of the STM Journals.
  • CELS Journals It is appropriate, not to make any statement about acceptance/ rejection or revision (subject to receipt of two similar opinions on revision) on a manuscript to the author, till a final verdict is arrived at, as per the CELS Journals norms.
  • CELS Journals The announcement of decision on acceptance/ rejection may rest on the CELS Journals publication management team.
  • CELS Journals publication management team expects the editor/ reviewer to monitor the status of manuscripts and specially watch for the comments on revision, rejection and acceptance to avoid any duplication of efforts at their ends. Onward actions/ decisions by the publication management team will be based on the information/ comments made available by the editor/ reviewer online on the web/ offline through an email.
  • CELS Journals Critical appraisal should be presented dispassionately in the comments intended for the Authors and harsh remarks avoided.
  • CELS Journals Suggested modifications should not imply as conditions of acceptance. It is important to make distinction between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.
  • CELS Journals In cases, we do not accept a manuscript; we should convey our constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. This requires providing elaborate comments (with citations, if possible); it will help the editors/ reviewers to make a decision on the manuscript and the authors to improve it.
  • CELS Journals The documentation on criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning the manuscript is to be preserved carefully. It will be quite useful for decision makers.
  • CELS Journals Editors/ reviewers are not expecting correct mistake/s in grammar, but any assistance in this regard will be highly appreciated.
  • CELS Journals The editors/ publication management team gratefully receive a reviewer's/ referee’s recommendation (s), but since the decisions are based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer/ referee should not expect decision makers to honor his or her every recommendation.
  • (In preparation of these norms, support from the information provided in the guidelines of Council of Science Editors has been taken)


General Yardsticks on suitability of Manuscripts

  • Originality- Novel that has potential to significantly add / support the research already published / known to us through available literature.
  • Subject relevance and scientific reliability.
  • Importance in terms of application or otherwise to scientific/ business community in particular and the society in general of the subject dealt.
  • Adequacy of abstract, key words.
  • Appropriateness of approach or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including statistics where appropriate, need for statistical assessment). Methods adequately described/ appropriate or not.
  • Results relevant to the problem posed/ credible or not.
  • Answers to questions- Soundness of conclusions and interpretation, interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data, reasonable speculation and clarity of the message.
  • Relevance of citations and their up to date inclusion. Obvious omission(s) if any.
  • Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles.
  • Suitability for the CELS Journal(s) in totality. Its appropriateness for general readers or for a specialist clientele.
  • Presentation in toto, considering writing style, clarity in expression. 

(In preparation of these norms, support from the information provided in the guidelines of Council of Science Editors has been taken)