EduPub aims to publish high-quality innovative research works. All submitted book chapters or monographs are subject to peer review before publication.
Monographs
Monograph manuscripts are subject to external double blind review with a mission to ensure that they comply with the scientific and ethical requirements. Each monograph is submitted to a plagiarism check by the Internal Handling Editor, prior to peer review. All scientific works are subject to peer review by minimum two peers in the same field prior to publishing. Referees are external experts who agree to evaluate the submitted manuscript, independently on a voluntary basis.
Edited Volumes
Book chapter manuscripts are published as a part of Edited Volumes. A full chapter consists of a manuscript title, Author name(s) and affiliation(s), abstract, keywords, introduction, main body with headings and sub-headings, acknowledgements (if any), Ethical issues (if any), Competing interests (if any), appendices (if any) and references. In case of Edited Volumes Academic Editors are responsible for the final selection of all the chapters. Academic Editors are the leading international subject experts. He / She decides the suitability of all chapters based on the peer review outcome, as explained below. The Chapters, which are incomplete, out of scope of the book, not scientifically sound, are rejected immediately.
(If any External Editor wish to contribute a chapter, the peer review process for his/her chapter is arranged by Second External Editor to avoid conflict of interest. The submitted manuscripts of the Academic editors are reviewed blindly by external peer reviewers.)
Peer Review Process:
All submitted monographs and book chapters first go through the initial Editorial screening. The Academic Editor(s) reviews the work on the ground of plagiarism, and the scientific value, to decide whether they are suitable for the book. The manuscripts are subject to external blind review.
Reviewer selection is a critical parameter to maintain the high peer review standard. Many factors are considered during peer reviewer selection like: proof of expertise in terms of published papers in the same area in reputed journals, affiliation, and reputation, specific suggestion, etc. We try to avoid reviewers who are slow, careless or do not provide sufficient justification for their decision (positive or negative). We also, as much as possible, try to rule out those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest.
With the help of the reviewers’ comments, FINAL decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) is taken by the Academic Editor. The final decision is sent to the corresponding author. The Editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer’s response in order to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the FINAL decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service was not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a FINAL decision.
Authors are encouraged to submit the revised version within 15-21 days of receipt of reviewers’ comments (in case of minor corrections). But at any case, the revised manuscript submission should not go beyond eight weeks (only for the cases of major revision), in order to maintain EduPub’s mission of the fast publication. Along with corrected manuscript authors need to submit filled ‘review comment forms’, any rebuttal to any point raised by reviewers. The Academic Editor will have the exclusive power to take the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript during peer review process.
EduPub strongly opposes the practice of any type of plagiarism. All manuscripts are checked by several plagiarism checking software and tools and plagiarized manuscripts are rejected immediately. If reviewers suspect any unethical practice in the manuscript, the reviewers should write it in the report with some proof/web links.
EduPub believes in constructive criticism. Reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language. Unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editors’ discretion. It is expected that the reviewers should suggest the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable. Comments of the reviewers should be sufficiently informative and helpful to reach an Editorial Decision. We strongly advise that a negative review should also explain the weaknesses of any manuscript, so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of rejection and he/she can improve the manuscript based on those comments. Authors also should not confuse straightforward and true comments with unfair criticism. Substantially Extended version of previously published articles in conference or similar scholarly communications or digital archives or prepublication repositories may be considered by the reviewers and editors provided a clear disclaimer is added inside the chapter with complete transparent disclosure about the genesis of the manuscript and all required permissions are collected by the authors.
EduPub is very much reluctant to go against suggestions (particularly on technical areas) of the reviewers. Therefore, authors are requested to treat the suggestions of reviewers with utmost importance.
Appeal
Rejected Works are given the opportunity for a formal appeal. Appeal requests should be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be addressed to editor@pen2print.org with the word “appeal” in the subject line. If an author remains unsatisfied, he or she can write to the Editorial Office, citing the manuscript reference number. In all these cases, it is likely that some time will elapse before EduPub can respond, and the manuscript must not be submitted for publication elsewhere during this time. Authors should provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ and/or Academic Editor’s comments. Authors should also be aware that priority is given to new submissions and so the processing of the appeal may take longer than the processing of the original submission. If an appeal is rejected, further appeals of the decision will not be considered and the manuscript may not be resubmitted.
All reviewers and academic editors are strongly encouraged to consult the below mentioned resources:
1. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer reviewers (https://tinyurl.com/cope-12guidelines)
2. Publons Peer Reviewer Academy (https://tinyurl.com/publons-2academy)
.jpg)
.jpg)
