Peer Review Process

Sanglap is committed to peer-reviewing integrity and upholding the highest standards of review. All publishable materials – articles, review articles, reviews, interviews – go through rigorous peer-reviewing process. Peer-review is defined as "obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field of publication." Sanglap follows a single blind peer review system after an initial editorial review at the board level. Below are the details of the peer-review process:

• Upon receiving submission, the editorial board will do the first scrutiny review.
• Only when a work’s originality and rigour is confirmed at the board level, the Chief Editors will erase all author-identifying information and send the work for blind peer review.
• All reviews are done by experts in the field.
• Reviewers are given an in-house ‘Review Report’ where they are asked to check ‘Yes’, ‘Partially’ or ‘No’ on eight areas including originality, coherence, communicability, argumentation, rigour, secondary research and innovation, and factual errors part of a piece.
• Then the reviewer is asked to give a decision in the Form out of the following four: rejection, major revision, minor revision, publication in its current form.
• The reviewers will then write a substantive commentary in the Review Report form, justifying their decision. Often reviewers will ask for revisions and inform the authors/editors in point-by-point fashion where and how revision will have to be implemented. They will also point out any secondary research that need to be cited or has been cited incorrectly. They will then send the work back to the Chief Editors
• The Chief Editors will then contact the contributors with the report and where necessary start the revision process, outlining a time period for revision (not more than one month)
• Upon receiving revised work by contributors, Chief Editors will contact the reviewers
• The reviewer may ask for another quick revision
• If a major revision is suggested by the reviewer and if the Chief Editors recommend, the revised article may be sent back to the original reviewer for a second read.
• When the work is ready for publication, they will be sent to the publishing team for final editing, proof reading and publication.

Reviewers will have to disclose if there is a conflict of interest (blind peer review system and the best practices of academic integrity ensure that all conflicts of interest are taken care of). All reviewed articles are treated confidentially prior to their publication.

Decision:

We do our best to notify the decisions within two-three months. Should a writer intend to withdraw their article within the stipulated time, they must take permission from the editors signing a letter of declaration. For two or more authors, permission and approval of the authorial team is necessary.

Autonomy:

Guest editors and the editorial board enjoy full autonomy as to the quality, selection, and publication aspects of the work. All final decisions in this regard remain with guest editors or the board (where relevant). The board does not interfere in the decision-making process in guest edited issues.