The peer review process facilitates a fair hearing for a manuscript among members of the scientific community. More practically, it helps editors decide which manuscripts are suitable for their journals. Peer review often helps authors and editors improve the quality of reporting.

We believe that manuscripts submitted to our journal are privileged communications that are authors' private, confidential property, and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of a manuscript details.

Reviewers therefore are asked to keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers must not publicly discuss authors' work and must not appropriate authors' ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews to the editor.

Reviewers are expected to respond to requests to review and to submit reviews within the agreed time frame. Reviewer's comments should be constructive, honest, and polite. All the articles go through a double blind peer-review process from the same field. Acceptance from at least two peer-reviewers are required before the article is considered for publication.

2.1 ROLE OF EDITORIAL TEAM

• To evaluate and resolve to any complaint and appeals made by any individual related to Published/Submitted scholarly work in the Journal
• To ensure transparency in the review process of the submitted articles
• To offer expertise in their specialist area
• To work with the Editor to ensure ongoing development of the journal
• To identify topics for Special Issues of the journal or recommend a Conference for the promotion of the Journal
• To attract new and established authors and article submissions
• Accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
• To resolve the potential disputes/disagreement, if arises among the authors regarding the scholarly work published in the journal

2.2 EDITOR'S GUIDELINES

2.2.1 Publication Decision

The editor of theAIBD is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2.2.2 Fair Play

An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content and contribution to the existing knowledge, without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.2.3 Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff ofAIBD must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, and the reviewers.

2.3 REVIEWER'S GUIDELINES

2.3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decision

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.

2.3.2 Promptness

The review should be carried out within the agreed time frame. Further, 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 excuse himself from the review process.

2.3.3 Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others.

2.3.4 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

2.4 AUTHOR'S GUIDELINES

2.4.1 Reporting Standards

Research papers submitted toAIBD should be original and should not be under consideration to some other publisher at the same time.Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

2.4.2 Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

2.4.3 Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

2.4.4 Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

2.4.5 Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

2.4.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

2.4.7 Fundamental Errors in Published Work

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Back to top