Guidelines for Research Publications
Rabindranath Tagore University Bhopal has a vision & focus on promoting research driven skill based education and developing research culture among students, scholars and faculty in Rabindranath Tagore University and also other institutions. To convert this focus in to practice, many initiatives have been taken. The university follows code of ethics for publication in research articles, thesis, projects as well as other scholarly documents. University adopts plagiarism report generated by
Turnitin software, which is available to the research scholars, faculty and other students conveniently. One of such important initiatives is to publish in-house Journals. Following two journals are being published biannually:-
Anusandhan - A six monthly journal on Science, Technology and Management (March & September every year starting from March 2012)
Shodhaytan – A six monthly bilingual (Hindi & English) in house journal on non technical disciplines (June & December year starting from June 2014) Along with these Journals and research thesis, University is fairly involved in publications through publishing house of Rabindranath Tagore Limited, a sister concern.
|ASPECTS||MARCH ISSUE||SEPTEMBER ISSUE|
|Last date For Reciept Papers||UP TO 1 JANUARY||UP TO 1 JULY|
|Acknowledgment and Suggestions to Authors after Peer Review||30 JANUARY||30 JULY|
|Information for Acceptance to Author||20 FEBRUARY||20 AUGUST|
|Publication||MARCH LAST WEEK||SEPTEMBER LAST WEEK|
Anusandhan journal receives many more submissions than they can publish. Therefore, we ask peer-reviewers to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in a Anusandhan journal, a paper should meet following general criteria:
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. 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. The editors can make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities
Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific 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, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or 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. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors. When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper 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.
Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience. We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review.
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.
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 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; The ideal review should answer the following questions:
Anusandhan is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed.
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.
All contributions submitted to Anusandhan Journal that are selected for peer review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honours 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.