Review Process and Policy

As a publisher, we try to adhere to the norms and guidelines formulated by various scholarly societies and UGC to achieve international standards by maintaining quality in publication and by updating our publication system. We expect and encourage all the concerned people associated with the journal. In order to maintain transparency in publication, we encourage all—authors, editors, reviewers and other person/parties involved in the publication process, to avoid any form of conflicts of interest. The corresponding author is responsible for sending us the Conflict of Interest document agreed to and signed by other authors.

1. Generation Information
(a) Research Papers, Articles, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles will be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
(b)If other contributed articles present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
(c)About the peer-review process, we encourage reviewers to contact us through email.

2. Criteria for Publication
We are constantly trying to raise the standards of our publications. We expect the same kind of commitment from authors to conform to the ethical norms by following our guidelines.
Research paper should meet following general criteria:
(a)Quality of Research work and unpublished nature.
(b)Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
(c)Novel, Innovative and Meaningful to specific field and bringing forth new facts and sources.
(d)Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.
(e)In general paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the sent work deserves publication.

3. Plagiarism Policy
Authors submitting with us are expected to have proper understanding about the plagiarism issues. Nothing should be copied in any form without proper acknowledgement or legal permission in any way that may violate other’s intellectual rights. While they should include acknowledgement to other’s works, they should also take permission for using any material from the concerned persons themselves. The journal will not initiate any process nor will
remain responsible for any kind of copyright violation.

4.The Review Process
We follow Two-tiered Review system. At the first level the paper presented has to be marked as fit for publication or not by the Chairpersons of the technical sessions. Chairpersons are our primary reviewers. If there are suggestions for improvement, the presenter has to re-submit the paper.
At the second level members of the Editorial Board review the presented paper (after improvement) and after that, if required, the paper is sent to the reviewer. All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial board. The article is subjected to plagiarism check with software available and rejected if plagiarism is beyond 25%. Editor may decide to get article reviewed by more than one levier. Only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review.

5.Post Review/ Re review Process
We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the intellectual community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.

We may return to reviewers for further advice, where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested.

When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send are submitted papers back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.

We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so.

6.Selection of Peer Reviewers
Chairpersons of the session acts as reviewer at the first stage. Paper is only considered for publication if the chairperson marks it fit for same. If improvements are suggested, then the paper presenter is asked to re-submit the paper, after the inclusion of suggested improvements, then it is reviewed on the second stage by the Editorial Board or the Reviewers.

We choose reviewers on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience. We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review.

7.Access to the Literature by Peer Reviewers
If a reviewer does not have access to any published paper that is necessary for evaluation of a submitted manuscript, the journal will supply the reviewer with a copy.

8.Review Report
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen or improve their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that authors can understand needs to be done to improve the manuscript. Confidential comments
to the editor are welcome.

9.Timing
We are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service to our contributors or uthors. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed.

10. Anonymity
We do not release referees' identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.

11.Peer–Review Publication Policies
All submitted Research papers are reviewed at second stage by the members of Editorial Board and if required by the peers appointed by the Rajasthan History Congress. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honors them, but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final.
Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.

Author’s Responsibility & Guidelines
 A Research paper should contain sufficient detail and references to the work.
 The authors should ensure that they have submitted their original works, and if the authors have used the work of other’s then that has been appropriately cited.
 All those who have made significant contributions should be reported as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research should be acknowledged as contributors.
 When an author notices inaccuracy in his own published work, it is the author’s duty to promptly notify the editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.