uk_bg
FOR REVIEWERS

General Guideline for Peer Review process

This journal’s peer review policy states that NO manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is scientifically robust and technically sound.

To know the complete guideline for Peer Review process, reviewers are requested to follow next recommendations:

Publication Criteria                                                        

  1. The study has not been published (partly or as a whole) before or is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
  2. Its publication is permitted by all authors and after accepted for publication it will not be submitted for publication anywhere else, in English or in any other language, without the written approval of the copyright-holder.
  3. It is compulsory for the authors to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights, or the rights of a third party.
  4. If a submitted study replicates or is very similar to previous work, authors must provide a sound scientific rationale for the submitted work and clearly reference and discuss the existing literature. Submissions that replicate or are derivative of existing work will likely be rejected if authors do not provide adequate justification.
  5. English quality: The language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. It is author's responsibility to improve the English quality (if required) by any other third party service.
  6. The research must meet all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
  7. The editorial board believes that no manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer think is interesting and will gain greater readership - both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication. SWUFT will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).

Agreement for Authorship

Submission of a paper to this yearbook indicates that the author(s) have agreed the content of the paper. One author should be indicated as corresponding author for all publication related communications. All correspondence and proofs would be sent to the corresponding author, who will be treated as final representative voice for all authors regarding any decision related to manuscript, unless otherwise requested during submission. This journal would not be responsible for any dispute related to authorship of a submitted paper. Any change in the authorship (such as addition or deletion of author(s) or change in the sequence of author list) should be intimated to the editorial office through a letter signed by all authors before publication of the paper.

Peer Review Mechanism

From 1st February, every year, Academic Publishing of the University of Food Technologies followes strict double blind fold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure unbiased evaluation.

Advanced OPEN Peer Review

High quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by minimum two peers of the same field. OPEN peer review provides the provision to reveal the identities of the authors and reviewers to each other during review process. In order to add transparency further, details of all reviewers and academic editors are published in the first page of every published paper. As a final step to provide highest level transparency in the process, all review comments, authors' feedbacks, all versions of the manuscript and editorial comments are saved (along with date) with the paper in 'Review History' file in the University. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc.) during peer review.

 Additionally we believe that one of the main objectives of peer review system is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Normally we try to publish the ‘average marks (out of 10)’ a manuscript received at initial peer review stage and at final publication stage to record its history of improvement during peer review. This process further increases the transparency. It is more important to record honestly the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript’ than claiming that 'our peer review system is perfect’. Therefore, these transparent processes (i.e. publication of review history files and scores of a particular manuscript) additionally give a clear idea of the strength and weakness of a published paper to the readers, which enhances the chances of proper use of the result of a research (and or reduces the chances of misuse of the weakness of the findings of the paper). Thus this transparent process may prove to be highly beneficial for the society in long run.

 We strongly discourage any attempt by the authors to contact the reviewer directly to influence the review process. We also strongly discourage any attempt by the reviewers to contact the authors directly.

Reviewer Suggestion

It is a prerequisite to invite of 4 potential reviewers. Those suggested peer reviewers must not to have any conflict of interest. Suggested reviewers should not: i) be from the same department or division as one of the authors (the same university, state, country should also be avoided); ii) have been a research guide or student of one of the authors within the past 10 years; iii) have collaborated with one of the authors within the past 10 years; iv) be employees of non-academic organizations with which one of the authors has collaborated within the past 10 years). It is sole right of the editorial team to decide whether suggested reviewers to be used or not.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is a critical parameter to maintain the high peer review standard of any journal. Many factors are considered during peer reviewer selection like: proof of expertise in terms of published papers in the same area in reputed journals, affiliation and reputation, specific suggestion, etc. We try to avoid reviewers who are slow, careless, or do not provide sufficient justification for their decision (positive or negative). Authors can also identify peers that they want not to review their paper. As far as possible, the editorial team respects requests by authors to exclude reviewers whom they consider to be unsuitable. We also, as much as possible, try to rule out those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest.

The main force behind our fast, efficient and quality peer review process is the tremendous hard work of our Peer Reviewers & Editors. We are extremely grateful to the peer reviewers and editors for their great service.

Review Process Flow

Review forms are sent to the scientists who accept to review the manuscripts. Reviewers’ comments are generally sent to authors within 3 weeks after submission. With the help of the reviewers’ comments, final decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) will be sent to the corresponding author. Reviewers are asked if they would like to review a revised version of the manuscript. The editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer's response in order to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the final decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a final decision.

Authors are encouraged to submit the revised manuscript within 7-15 days of receipt of reviewer’s comment (in Authors are encouraged to submit the revised manuscript within 7-15 days of receipt of reviewer’s comment (in case of minor corrections). But at any case revised manuscript submission should not go beyond 8 weeks (only for the cases of major revision which involves additional experiment, analysis etc.), in order to maintain this journal’s mission of fast publication. Along with corrected manuscript authors need to submit filled review comment form, any rebuttal to any point raised by reviewers. The chief Editor of the journal will have exclusive power to take final decision for acceptance or rejection during any dispute.

General Guidelines for Peer Review Process

  • Academic Publishing of the University of Food Technologies strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. If you suspect any unethical practice in this manuscript, kindly write it in the report with some proof/web links.
  • Studies which are carried out to reconfirm / replicate the results of any previously published paper with new data-set, may be considered for publication. But these types of studies should have a ‘clear declaration’ of this matter.
  • Academic Publishing of the University of Food Technologies believes that no manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer think is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication. Academic Publishing of the University of Food Technologies will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound.

   Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).

  • Academic Publishing of the University of Food Technologies believes in constructive criticism. Reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language (Unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editors' discretion). It is expected that the reviewers should suggest the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable. Comments of the reviewers should be sufficiently informative and helpful to reach a Editorial Decision. We strongly advise that a negative review should also explain the weaknesses of any manuscript, so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of rejection and he/she can improve the manuscript based on those comments. Authors also should not confuse straightforward and true comments with unfair criticism.
  • We are very much reluctant to go against suggestions (particularly on technical areas) of the reviewers. Therefore, authors are requested to treat the suggestions of reviewers with utmost important.

Plagiarism Policy

Academic Publishing of the University of Food Technologies strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. 

This journal aims to publish original high quality research work. Submission of manuscript to this journal indicates that the study has not been published anywhere or not been submitted elsewhere for publication. If author(s) are using any part of published paper (in English or any other language), they should give proper reference or in any case, if required they should get permission from the previous publisher or copyright holder (whichever is suitable).

Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after internal investigation, a letter would be immediately sent to all the authors, their affiliated institutes and funding agency, if applied and subsequently the paper will be retracted.

Plagiarism policy of this journal is based on the following:

  1. Plagiarism is when an author attempts to pass off someone else's work as his or her own. This journal also adopted IEEE definition of plagiarism to deal such cases. It defines plagiarism as "the reuse of someone else’s prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source.”
  2. Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been cut-and-pasted. Such manuscripts would not be considered for publication in a Scientific Works of University of Food Technologies. Papers with confirmed plagiarisms are rejected immediately.
  3. But minor plagiarism without dishonest intent is relatively frequent, for example, when an author reuses parts of an introduction from an earlier paper.
  4. Duplicate publication, sometimes called self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of his or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from getting an identical paper published in multiple journals, to 'salami-slicing', where authors add small amounts of new data to a previous paper. Self-plagiarism, also referred to as ‘text recycling’, is a topical issue and is currently generating much discussion among editors. Opinions are divided as to how much text overlap with an author’s own previous publications is acceptable. We normally follow the guidelines given in COPE website. Editors, reviewers and authors are also requested to strictly follow this excellent guideline (Reference: Text Recycling Guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines).
  5. In case of 'suspected minor plagiarism', authors are contacted for clarification. Depending on all these reports, reviewers and editors decide final fate of the manuscript. If the manuscript is finally accepted and published, then to maintain transparency, all these reports are published in 'publication history' of the paper by following Advanced OPEN peer review system. The SWUFT journal editors judge any case of which they become aware (either by their own knowledge of and reading about the literature, or when alerted by referees) on its own merits.
  6. Use of automated software is helpful to detect the 'copy-paste' problem. All submitted manuscripts are checked by the help of different databases, eTBLAST, Plagiarism Detection tools, etc. At the same time scientific implication of the case ('suspected minor plagiarism'), is also judged by reviewers and editors. Plagiarism Detection tools are useful, but they should to be used in tandem with human judgment and discretion for the final conclusion. Therefore, suspected cases of plagiarisms are judged by editors on 'case-to-case basis'.
  7. Editors have the final decision power for these cases.

To know the complete guideline for manuscript preparation, reviewers are requested to use this link: http://www.scienwork.uft-plovdiv.bg/en/instructions