Editorial Board Guidelines
Members of Editorial Board are an indispensable and important opulence for Journals. They help in guiding the Journals towards development and success. Editorial Board for Justice and Law Bulletin comprises of Editor-in-chief, Editors and Reviewers.
Guidelines for Editor-in-Chief:
- The Editor-in-Chief should act if he/ she suspects misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought before him/ her. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
- The Editor-in-Chief should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct, rather they should investigate thoroughly before taking a decision.
- The Editor-in-Chief should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted and co-ordinate with editors to make all reasonable attempts in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
- The Editor-in-Chief should encourage and be willing to consider valid criticisms of work published in their journal.
- The Editor-in-Chief should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further.
- It is the duty of the Editor-in-Chief to check final draft of the Journal
- The Editor-in-Chief should advise the editorial office and give regular suggestions &feedback regarding improvement of Journal quality (UGC Approval; Indexing)
- The Editor-in-Chief should help in International recognition & collaboration with various Universities and Research Institutions
- The Editor-in-Chief should conduct and address regular Editorial board meetings
Guidelines for Editors:
- Editors should ensure that competent Reviewers are selected for reviewing manuscripts and encourage Reviewers to produce polite, admirable and early reviews.
- Editors should ensure that the peer review process is conducted evenly and the standard and quality of the content of Journal is maintained
- Editors should give impartial consideration to each manuscript submitted for consideration for publication, without considering the religion, race, sex, nationality, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s). Editors’ recommendation to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the peer reviews and their own view on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, the study’s validity and its relevance to the scope of the journal.
- Editors should require Reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
- Editors information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer review process.
- Editors should monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard. Editors should encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation).
- If a journal editor receives a claim that a submitted article is under consideration elsewhere or has already been published, then he or she has a duty to investigate the matter with Open Access Text.
- Editors should discuss any case of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship with the editor-in-chief or the publisher.
- Any data or analysis presented in a submitted manuscript should not be discussed or used in a journal editor's own research except with the consent of the author.
- Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct must provide all the information needed for the investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached. Editorial board members must guarantee prompt responses to the complainants by taking action and correcting the flaws.
- An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
- Editors should give regular suggestion for journals progress and improvement to publisher.
- Editors should regularly attend editorial board meetings
Guidelines for Reviewers:
- Reviewers are expected to provide evaluation of the manuscript, but they should avoid comments that are rude or exasperating and behave in a responsible and ethical manner.
- Reviewers are required to respond quickly to the invitation to review a manuscript.
- Reviewers are expected to send their reviews within a week of receiving the manuscript. The reviews should be completed by the deadline indicated in invitation. If due to some reasons the Reviewers are unable to submit the Review Report in time, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editor immediately.
- Reviewers are required to review the manuscript and give their analysis using the Reviewer Form provided to them.
- When making a final recommendation on the manuscript, the Reviewer should choose one of the following options:
(1) Publish As it is: When the article fulfils all of the requirements and is ready for publication.
(2) Major Changes: When the article is not according to the parameters set in the "Author Guidelines". Major changes are to be done in the manuscript.
(3) Minor Changes: When the article is not according to the parameters set in the "Author Guidelines". Minor changes are to be done in the manuscript.
(4) Reject & Resubmit: When the article in its current form is not suitable for publication and requires significant revision for more than 50% of the manuscript. However, there is always a possibility for improvements and in this case, the reviewer should give detailed instruction to the author for making corrections and resubmit it afresh.
- In order to maintain the integrity of the review process, the reviewers should not discuss the reviewed manuscript with anyone without specific permission from the Editor. In case they take help from someone during review process, they should mention the name of that person in the Review Report.
- The reviewers should not copy, share or disseminate any information concerning the manuscript for any purpose, including advancement of their own research.
- If any explanation from the author/authors is needed, the Reviewer should include their query into the Comments section of the Review Report.
- Reviewers should be objective while conducting reviews and the comments &recommendations should be supported with relevant arguments.
- The reviewers should reveal any potential competing interest that may bias the review of the submitted manuscript (including any financial interest in the publication or non-publication of the manuscript; a recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors; a history of dispute with the authors).
- If the reviewer is currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or has been recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, the invitation of the manuscript reviewing should be rejected.
- Potential Reviewers should provide accurate information (their name, designation, affiliation, email id, mobile no. etc.) which is required for their empanelment in the editorial Board. In case of any change in job or contact information, they should readily inform the editorial office about the same.
- Reviewers should regularly attend editorial board meetings