Review Process

Double-blind Peer Review Process

The aim and objective of Anusandhan The Research Repository of GIBS is to ensure the high standards of the original and scientific research papers and articles. All the published research papers and articles are double blind peer reviewed.

In the case of proposed publications, our editorial board will judge and evaluate the proposed manuscript on certain parameters like relevance of the submitted work with the aims and scope of the journal, scientific quality of the work and contribution of the work in respective branch of knowledge. If, the proposed work found suitable in quick review by the editorial board than editor will forward copies of an author’s work to two experts (“referees” or “reviewers”) in the respective field by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. 

These referees or reviewers will return an evaluation of the proposed work to the editor in prescribed format along with acceptance and suggestions for improvement. Further, this evaluation will be forwarded by editor after reviewing the comments of referees in context with the scope of the journal to the author for consideration and improvement of the proposed work.

Referees’ evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposed work as per the options available in the prescribed format. During this peer review process, the role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is typically under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. Moreover, in the process of scientific publication, the referees do not communicate with each other, do not act as a group, and are not aware of each other’s identities or comments. 

In particular situations, where the referees disagree considerably about the quality of a manuscript, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When the editor receives positive and negative reviews for the same manuscript by two different reviewers, the editor will ask for one or more additional reviews or on the basis of comments of one reviewer, the editor may take his/her decision about the respective manuscript.