India,
Saudi Arabia,
South Africa,
USA,
Nepal,
Sri Lanka, and
Kuwait — reflecting our commitment to global academic collaboration and Exposure.
Peer Review Policy, Review Board Members and Review Task Logs
1. List of Esteemed Reviewers
2. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Ensure the originality, scientific quality, and ethical compliance of submissions.
- Evaluate manuscripts in a fair, timely, and constructive manner.
- Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
- Disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting assignments.
3. Core Ethical Guidelines
3.1 Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or disclose content with unauthorized individuals or use the information for personal gain.
3.2 Constructive and Respectful Feedback
Feedback must be professional, respectful, and aimed at improving the quality of the work. Personal criticism is strictly discouraged.
3.3 Acknowledging Sources
Reviewers should identify missing citations or improper referencing and report suspected plagiarism or duplication.
3.4 Ethical Integrity
Report concerns related to ethical misconduct such as falsified data, inappropriate authorship, or unethical research practices.
3.5 Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any affiliations, collaborations, or financial ties with authors or institutions that may influence objectivity.
3.6 Timeliness and Communication
Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the designated timeline. If unable, please notify the editorial office at the earliest.
4. Review Criteria
- Originality and Novelty: Does the manuscript offer new concepts, methodologies, or insights?
- Methodological Soundness: Are the methods appropriate, well described, and reproducible?
- Scientific Merit: Is the work scientifically accurate and free of major flaws?
- Interpretation of Results: Are the findings supported by evidence and logically discussed?
- Presentation and Clarity: Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and easy to follow?
- Figures and Tables: Are they informative, properly labeled, and essential?
- Referencing: Are references appropriate, recent, and correctly formatted?
- Ethical Compliance: Does the manuscript comply with ethical standards for research involving humans, animals, or the environment?
- Contribution to the Field: Does the work advance knowledge in Life Sciences or its sub-disciplines?
5. Review Report Format
| Article ID | _________________________ |
|---|---|
| Title | _________________________ |
| Reviewer Name | _________________________ |
| Affiliation | _________________________ |
| Comments | _________________________ |
| Recommendation | [ ] Accept [ ] Minor Rev. [ ] Major Rev. [ ] Reject |
| Date | _________________________ |
6. Reviewer Task Log and Certificates
All reviewers are automatically sent Certificate for revieweing article. The unique article number of reviewed article and certificate number of certificate provided to the reviewer is displayed only after the review is complete and the article is either published or denied for publication
7. Journal’s Peer Review Policy
Vat-Vriksha Journal adheres to a double-blind peer review model to uphold integrity, transparency, and unbiased evaluation. Each submission is reviewed by at least two qualified experts in the field.
8. Editorial and Publishing Ethics
- Editorial Independence: Decisions are based on scientific merit alone.
- Transparency: All stages of the editorial process are clearly documented.
- Anti-Plagiarism Measures: All manuscripts are screened through reliable plagiarism detection tools.
- Retraction and Corrections: The journal follows COPE and ICMJE guidelines for corrections, errata, and retractions.
9. Systematic Reviews and PRISMA Compliance
Authors submitting systematic reviews are strongly encouraged to follow the PRISMA guidelines to ensure transparency, completeness, and reproducibility.
10. Expanded Peer Review Policy (Adapted from Standard Scientific Journals)
Review Model: Vat‑Vriksha Journal employs a double‑blind review process...
Initial Screening: Submissions are first checked by the editorial office...
Reviewer Selection: Two or more independent experts are selected...
Reviewer Responsibilities:
- Provide objective, constructive feedback in English with clear rationale...
- Preserve confidentiality and not share or reuse the manuscript content...
- Disclose any conflicts of interest...
- Meet deadlines or communicate promptly...
Review Criteria: Novelty, data quality, ethics, clarity, and impact.
Ethical Standards: All submissions are screened for plagiarism...
Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer reports, the editorial board...
Communication & Appeals: Authors can appeal with a point-by-point rebuttal...