Peer Review Process

Himalayan Journal of Applied Science and Engineering (HiJASE)

Peer Review Process

The peer review process is done by the experts in the related field in order to maintain and ensure the high quality for the publication of journal. Decision on acceptance or rejection will be made by journal editors or the journal’s editorial board upon the recommendation of reviewers. Indeed, it is the journal editorial board who is considered to be central to the decision making process.

    1. The journal accepts manuscripts through electronic form. Manuscript is submitted through e–mail attachment to the Editor–in–Chief at hijase@pu.edu.np.
    2. The Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Secretary first evaluates all the submitted manuscripts. Generally, manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are forwarded to at least two academic and research experts for peer review. If necessary, there will be an option for third review.
    3. The journal will contact national and international experts from other universities, institutions, journals, or organizations to ensure impartiality, transparency, and diversity of the peer review process. The editorial board then matches the referees to the paper according to their area of concentration and expertise whenever possible. The journal employs double blind reviewing where referees remain anonymous to the authors and vice-versa throughout the review process.
    4. The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees involved. Usually, these are cases where referee reports contradict each other or where delays of referee reports are unavoidable. To expedite the process, the journal disseminates the manuscripts immediately and set deadlines for the assigned referees. In cases of contradictory referee reports, the editorial board has the final decision whether to accept or reject the manuscript.
    5. Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes the final decision based on the several possibilities indicated below.
      1. Full acceptance, with or without minor revision
      2. Conditional acceptance, with major revisions(invite the author to revise their manuscript and address specific concerns before a final decision is made)
      3. Reject, with specific reasons with inclusion of reviewers comments but indicate to the authors that further improvements might justify a resubmission
      4. Reject outright, usually on the grounds of lack of novelty and originality, insufficient theoretical and conceptual advancement, and major technical or interpretational problems of the manuscript.
    6. For conditionally accepted manuscripts, the editor board has full authority to accept or reject of any manuscripts after full revisions. The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is sent to the author.