The manuscript should be presented in the following order.
This should contain the title of the contribution and the names and addresses of the authors. The full postal address, e-mail address, telephone and facsimile number of the author who will receive correspondence and check the proofs should be included.
The running head or short title is the shortened version of your manuscript title. Not only does this help identifying your manuscript during the evaluation process, it also acts as the manuscript title on the journal homepage providing information at a glance for people who are reading the journal.
All manuscripts must include a brief but informative Abstract. It should not exceed 300 words and should describe the scope, hypothesis or rationale for the work and the main findings. The abstract should allow the reader to quickly have a clear idea about the rational for the work, the experiments conducted and the results of those experiments before reading the rest of the manuscript. Both common and scientific names should be included; the authorities are not given if they appear in the title. References to the literature and mathematical symbols/equations should not be included.
Key words (3-5) should be provided below the Abstract to assist with indexing of the article.
The Introduction should briefly indicate the objectives of the study and provide enough background information to clarify why the study was undertaken and what hypotheses were tested.
This section should be concise but provide sufficient detail of the material used and equipment and the procedure followed to allow the work to be repeated by others.p>
Results should be presented in a logical sequence in the text, tables and figures. Repetitive presentation of the same data in tables and figures should be avoided. The results should not contain material appropriate to the Discussion. All tables, graphs, statistical analyses and sample calculations should be presented in this section.
The results should be discussed in relation to any hypotheses advanced in the Introduction. Comment on results and indicate possible sources of error. Place the study in the context of other work reported in the literature. Only in exceptional cases should the “Results and Discussion” sections be combined. Refer to graphs, tables and figures by number. This helps tie the data into the text in a very effective manner. Authors should also take future research and limitations into account in the Discussion section.
The main conclusions of the experimental work should be presented. The contribution of the work to the scientific community and its economic implications should be emphasized.
The authors should acknowledge the funders of this manuscript and provide all necessary funding information.
The source of financial support must be acknowledged. Authors must declare any financial support or relationships that may pose conflict of interest in the covering letter submitted with the manuscript. Technical assistance may also be acknowledged.
A conflict of interest exists when judgment regarding the research is influenced by factors such as financial gain or personal relationships. All authors are required to disclose any financial, personal or other associations that may influence or be perceived to influence, their work.p>
It is the Authors responsibility to ensure that the information in each reference is complete and accurate. Only published and “in press” references should appear in the reference list.
Tables should be self-contained and the data should not be duplicated in figures. Tables should be numbered consecutively. Each table should be presented on a separate page with a comprehensive but concise legend above the table. Tables should be double-spaced and vertical lines should not be used to separate columns. Column headings should be brief, with units of measurement in parentheses. All abbreviations should be defined in footnotes. Use superscript letters (not numbers) for footnotes and keep footnotes to a minimum. *, **, *** should be reserved for P values.
Only necessary illustrations should be included. All illustrations (line drawings and photographs) are classified as figures. Figures should be cited in consecutive order in the text. Figures should be sized to fit within the column or the full text width. Line figures should be supplied as sharp, black and white or color diagrams, drawn with a computer graphics package. Photographs should be sharp and magnifications should be indicated on photographs using a scale bar. Graphics should be supplied as high-resolution (at least 300 d.p.i.) electronic files. Digital images supplied as low-resolution cannot be used and will not be accepted. The legend should incorporate definitions of any symbols used and all abbreviations and units of measurement should be explained so that the figure can be understood without reference to the text.
SI units as outlined in the latest edition of Units, symbols and Abbreviations: A Guide for Medical and Scientific Editors and Authors (Royal Society of Medicine Press, London), should be used wherever possible. Statistics and measurements should always be given in figures; except where the number begins the sentence. When the number does not refer to a unit measurement, it is spelt out, except where the number is greater than nine. Use only standard abbreviations. The word Figure should be shortened to Fig. unless starting a sentence.
You can submit your prepared manuscript using our online submission system which you can access using the link given below.
All manuscripts should be submitted with a pre-defined cover letter. Authors may download the cover letter by clicking here.
Unless otherwise indicated, the articles and journal content published by Science Publications are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (also known as a CC-BY license). This means that you are free to use, reproduce and distribute the articles and related content (unless otherwise noted), for commercial and noncommercial purposes, subject to citation of the original source in accordance with the CC-BY license.
All manuscripts submitted to Science Publications undergo extensive evaluation while it’s in the peer-review process. For detailed information on our Editorial Workflow, click here.
Once the final review is completed, the author will be required to resubmit the revised manuscript using a journal template. The final Revised Manuscript will be sent via e-mail as a PDF file and should be returned within 3 days of receipt. Alterations to the text and figures (other than the essential correction of errors) are unacceptable at proof stage and authors may be charged for excessive alterations.
If only a small part of an article reports flawed data, and especially if this is the result of genuine error, then the problem can be rectified by a correction or erratum. Retractions are also used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication (i.e. when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and failure to disclose a major competing interest likely to influence interpretations or recommendations. Notices of retraction will mention the reasons and basis for the retraction, to distinguish cases of misconduct from those of honest error; they will also specify who is retracting the article.
Once a manuscript is assigned to you for review, please consider the following points:
If you feel that you can properly carry out the evaluation of the assigned article without any problem, you can request to take up the review process from the Editorial System.
Once you have taken up the article for evaluation, please keep in mind the following points:
You are acting as a representative of Science Publications and all files sent to you are extremely confidential. Being a reviewer, you cannot share any documents and/or information without proper authorization from the Editorial Team. If you would like to add any colleague in the review process, you will have to discuss with an Editorial Assistant first. Reviewers should also take extreme caution with research ideas and should not in any case use the data and/or topics in their own personal manuscripts.
A good and productive review process takes significant time. However, as authors are eagerly awaiting the evaluation results, we request our reviewers to deliver their comments within 2-3 weeks. If you feel that the article requires extensive reading, please inform the Editorial Office within the first week.
Being a reviewer, you also have to take into consideration if the article has any ethical issues. If you feel that the article in parts or in full has improperly copied any existing research, please raise this with the Editors. You should also check to see if the article is based on accuracy rather than personal statements and objectives.
The structure and content is the essential part of a manuscript. Reviewers should put their main focus on this portion and a majority of the review report should concentrate on the quality of the research.
Reviewers should carefully evaluate the following aspects of a manuscript:
Is the research topic a current and innovative idea? Is there any discussion on this matter and is it related to the scope of the journal? Has there been any previous research in this area? If so, is there any need for further research? Would the journal or any reader benefit from this article? Is there significant interest in this area of research?
Does the title properly explain the purpose and objective of the article? Is it too lengthy (Readers usually prefer clear and concise titles)?
Does the abstract contain an appropriate summary for the article? Is the language used in the abstract easy to read and understand? Are there any suggestions for improvement?
Do the authors provide adequate background on the topic and reason for this article? Does this section describe what the authors hoped to achieve? The introduction should provide a detailed outline for the article including the proposed experiment, the research method and results.
Is there detailed information on the experiment and research? Do the authors approach the subject with the proper method? Do they provide sufficient reasoning for their approach? Are the sample data and design clearly outlined? Can readers use the information given to replicate the research? Are all the measurements, equipment and materials adequately described?
Is there any flaws in the research results and methodology? Does the research provide ample data for the authors to make their conclusion? Have the authors highlighted their future implications and usage of their research? Is there any scope for further improvement? Did the authors outline the objective of their conclusions?
Are all the tables and figures used in the manuscript of high quality and original? Do they supplement the research? Are they properly referred to in the text?
The formatting of the article is an important part of the evaluation process but reviewers should not focus their decision based on this. If a manuscript has been accepted, the SciPub team reformats the manuscript according to our template. Just keep in mind the following points:
Does the article follow the journal’s format available online in the Instructions for Authors?
Do all paragraphs, tables and figures have proper headings?
Once you have evaluated the manuscript in a detailed manner, you can submit your review report to the Editorial Team.
When delivering a Review Decision, you have to select from any of the following three options:
Once you have decided your final decision on the article, please prepare your comments according to the journal’s Evaluation Report.
Once you have successfully reviewed the manuscript, you may submit your review via our Online Editorial System at http://www.w-jbb.com/
If you don’t have access to the Editorial System you may send it to the Editorial Assistant via email to update in the system.
If you have requested revisions of the article, the authors will revise their manuscript according to your comments and send you the revised version for a second round of evaluation. You can then check to see if the authors have properly addressed all your concerns. You can repeat this process as long as all the issues have been fixed and the article is suitable for publication.
All manuscripts are processed using Sheba Publications' in-house Manuscript Tracking System. Once we receive a manuscript, our Editorial Office runs a plagiarism check and screens the manuscript to decide whether or not it should be sent for peer review. It is therefore very important for authors to make sure that their manuscript is well written and is of high quality. During the initial screening, our Editorial Office mainly checks the following:
1. Does the manuscript fit the journal’s scope?
2. Is the content of the manuscript is good enough to make it worth reviewing?
3. Is the manuscript compliant with the journal’s Instructions for Authors?
4. Has the manuscript been submitted or published elsewhere?
If manuscript fails to meet the journal's requirements, it is immediately rejected.
After manuscripts clear the initial screening, they are assigned to either a Regional Editor/Editor-in-Chief. The Regional Editor/Editor-in-Chief assigns manuscripts to a Handling Editor. The handling editor will send the manuscript to a minimum of 3 reviewers for peer review. Reviewers submit the evaluation results along with their recommendations as one of the following actions:
1. Accept
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
4. Reject & Resubmit
5. Reject
We have a single blinded peer-review process in which the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are, but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are. All our journals acknowledge the researchers who have performed the peer-review and without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible. We try our best to adhere to the guidelines laid out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also forward the guidelines to our reviewers to ensure the highest ethical standards of evaluation.
In order for the handling editor to provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript, at least two completed reviews are required. Once the reviewers have submitted their comments, the handling editor will be notified. The handling editor will then send their recommendations to the Regional Editor/Editor-in-Chief. The Regional Editor/Editor-in-Chief delivers and informs the author of the final decision.
If the manuscript is conditionally accepted, authors will be required to revise their manuscript according to the Editor’s suggestions and submit a revised version of their manuscript for further evaluation.
Our Editorial Workflow allows editors to reject manuscripts due to a number of reasons including inappropriateness of the subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of the results. We ensure high quality and unbiased peer-review by sending the manuscript for evaluation to a range of reviewers in different parts of the world.
If authors feel any inconvenience in the publication process, they may submit their complaints to complaints@scipub.org. The Editorial Office will address complaints regarding the journal’s policies and procedures and may forward the complaint to the respective journal’s Editorial Board, if required.
Authors publishing with Sheba Publications retain the copyright of their work under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY). This license allows others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, provided that the original work is properly cited. Click here to find out more about our copyright policy.
Digital Preservation is an essential part in the open access publication process. It is crucial to ensure that all online research is secured and archived for continued long-term access. Sheba Publications has partnered with Portico, which is one of the largest community-supported digital archives in the world to ensure that all manuscripts published in Sheba Publication journals are digitally preserved and archived for permanent online access.
Authors must give assurance that no part of manuscript reporting original work is being considered for publication in whole or in part elsewhere. The corresponding author must affirm that all of the other authors have read and approved of the manuscript.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with any ethical standards set by a governing committee responsible for human experimentation (ie, if applicable, a university review board) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must, in a separate document, explain the rationale for their approach, and, if presented before a review body, demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.
Studies using human subjects are required to state in the manuscript that all human subjects were provided with the approved informed consent.
When reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether the institution”s or the National Research Council”s guide for, or any national law on, the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
w-jbb
