Shodh Sari-An International Multidisciplinary Journal

Review Policy
Editorial Review and Peer Review
All submissions to Shodh Sari Journal 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. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Editorial Oversight and Assignment

Following the initial screening, manuscripts deemed suitable for further consideration are assigned to an Editor with subject expertise. If an Editor has a competing interest (including authorship, collaboration, or institutional affiliation related to the manuscript), another qualified member of the Editorial Board is assigned to manage the peer review process to ensure impartiality.

Editor(s) to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts especially to discipline specific. Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results.

Editorial Decision

Editors consider all peer review reports before making a final decision. Possible editorial decisions include:

• Acceptance
• Acceptance with minor revisions
• Major revisions required
• Rejection

Authors receive anonymized peer review reports along with the editorial decision. Editors are not bound by reviewers’ recommendations but rely on their assessments to support fair and informed decision-making.

Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.

Editorial Independence and Fairness

Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scholarly quality, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. The journal does not discriminate on the basis of nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal beliefs of authors.

External Peer Review

Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent peer reviewers, selected based on their expertise in the relevant discipline. Reviewers are requested to submit detailed, constructive, and objective evaluations in English.

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts on, but not limited to, the following criteria:

• Originality and contribution to the field
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Soundness of methodology and data analysis
• Validity and interpretation of results
• Clarity of presentation and academic structure
• Appropriateness of references and contextual grounding
• Strength of conclusions and scholarly significance
• Suggestions for improvement, where applicable

Editorial decisions are based on the quality and substance of peer review reports, not merely on summary recommendations.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and associated communications are treated as confidential documents. Information obtained during the peer review process must not be disclosed to third parties or used for personal or professional advantage.

Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.

Responsibilities of Reviewers
This journal offers masked peer review (where both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are not known to the other). All articles are double reviewed by the editorial board and peer group as per specialization. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette.

• 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 decline to participate in the review process.

• Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone.

• Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research.

• Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

• Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.

• Reviewers should not upload their peer review report into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.

• The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report.

• A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

• Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

• Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

• The reviewer will submit the review report to the concerned editor only, who is assisting the reviewer in the review process.

Responsibility of Editor/s
It is the overall responsibility of the editors to publish high-quality articles as per the journal’s policies and guidelines. Some responsibilities, but not limited to mentioned below, are:

1. Editors have total control over whether or not an article is accepted or rejected.
2. Editors are in charge of the publication’s content and general quality.
3. When trying to promote a publication, editors should constantly consider the demands of the writers and readers, thereby ensuring that the articles are of top quality and that the academic record is accurate.
4. When needed, editors should issue erroneous pages or make revisions, and besides this, should make judgments entirely based on the articles’ significance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the scope of the journal.
5. Editors should have a thorough understanding of the funding sources for a study.
6. Editors should protect reviewers’ identities.
7. Editors should make sure that any study they publish follows globally acknowledged ethical criteria.
8. Editors should act if they suspect misbehavior in a manuscript, whether it is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable efforts to resolve the issue.

Ethical Framework

The peer review and editorial processes of Shodh Sari are guided by internationally recognized best practices and ethical standards, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct.

Conflict of Interest Statement and Research Misconduct
As per Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines:
‘Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.’

Many scholars, researchers and professionals may have potential conflicts of interest, that could – or could be seen to – have an effect on their research.

The editors, authors, and peer reviewers should disclose interests that might appear to affect their ability to present or review work objectively. These might include relevant financial interests (for example, patent ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, or speaker’s fees), or personal, political, or religious interests.

Articles will be evaluated fairly and will not necessarily be rejected when any competing interests are declared. Report of research misconduct, if any, may be related to a published article or a manuscript under peer-review process, should proceed with sensitivity, tact, in confidence, to shodhsari@icert.org.in

All research misconduct complaints will be treated as per complaints and appeal policy, and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

Compliance & Best Practice

Shodh Sari follows the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers (https://publicationethics.org).