Our aim is to proffer comprehensive guidance, lucid definitions, and firm expectations of standard in responsible editorial behavior.

Editor-in-Chief Guidelines

• The Editor-In-Chief (EIC) is the official representative of the journal in relation to the Applis Publishers Committee.
• The primary responsibilities of the editors-in-chief are to inform and educate readers, with attention to the accuracy and importance of journal articles, and to protect and strengthen the integrity and quality of the journal and its processes.
• The EiC is responsible for appointing members of the Editorial Team and Board, keeping the list of people involved up-to-date, as well as creating an active working environment in the processing of article submissions and reviews.
• Editors-in-chief should have full authority over the editorial content of the journal, generally referred to as “editorial independence”.
• The Editor-in-chief has the vital and ultimate duty of ensuring every publication meets these guidelines, and that work is of a sufficient quality before being released to the public.

Peer review process

• The Editor-in-Chief assesses each new submission to determine if the manuscript meets Applis standards and if it is within the scope of the journal topic areas.
• The Editor-in-Chief oversees the peer review process in collaboration with the journal office staff and is responsible for the content and quality of each issue.
• As needed, respond to correspondence with authors, Editors, reviewers, and readers regarding peer review and/or manuscript decisions.
• The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) holds overall responsibility for major decisions and has ultimate responsibility for the quality of peer reviews and publications.

Journal Development

• Lead and mentor journal Editorial Board, develop processes to increase the efficiency, quality, and uniformity of the editorial processes.
• Establish and maintain the scientific standards of the Journal; ensure uniformity of scientific standards across Journal sections; increase the visibility of the Journal.
• Write editorials that discuss issues pertinent to respective journals and its constituents.
• Encourage the submission of manuscripts; recruit manuscripts at conferences; commission special issues and guest editors.

Ethical Responsibilities

• The Editor-in-chief should comply with all ethical guidelines in order to foster an environment of integrity, objectivity, and independence at all times.
• An editor-in-chief should never make any editorial decision based on financial, political, ideological, or other such pressure from an outside agent. Decisions must be made predominantly on the basis that content within their publications is accurate, honest, and free from conflicting influence.
• The editor-in-chief should consider expressing concern at inconclusive evidence of author misconduct, unreliable findings that are not investigated by the author’s institution, the belief that an investigation would not be fair or ethical, or the findings to clarify a situation are far from becoming available.

Editor Guidelines

Editorial staff should adhere to a strict code of conduct, aiming to provide accurate, reputable, and original publications that meet all current legislation and quality standards.

Roles & Responsibilities:

An Editorial Board member is also expected to review a number of manuscripts each year, being an expert on the topic and familiar with the journal’s routine and rigor. Having an active Editorial Board is vital for the success of a journal. Each editorial team will ensure the respective discipline has a voice at the journal.
Responsibilities expected from a Journal Editorial Board member:
• To distribute to ‘Call for Papers’ or other important announcements from the journal as widely as possible.
• To promote the journal whenever possible to attract submissions for evaluation.
• To consider submitting their own publications to the journal.
• To come with suggestions to the EiC on how to improve the journal and its routines and guidelines
• To carry out occasional peer review for the journal.
• To assist in locating suitable peer reviewers, if required.
• To provide occasional editorial advice/opinion to the EiC and/or section editors on submissions.

Editorial ethics

• Confidentiality is a vital aspect of ethical conduct; no information deemed private should ever be shared with anyone outside of the editorial team without the necessary authority and clearance.
• Editorial staff should abstain from handling and publishing articles that may cause harm or place inequitable emphasis on religion, ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, disability or other sensitive matters.
• All decisions made by the editorial team must be free from bias and influence, whether it is political, financial, ideological, or otherwise.
• Read and understand COPE guidelines as well as Applis ethics policy, and follow them during all editorial processes.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer responsibilities

• The reviewer who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or affirms that he or she cannot meet the deadline for completion of the review should immediately notify the editor and excuse himself or herself from the process of reviewing this manuscript.
• The reviewer should inform the editor and rescue himself or herself from reviewing the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest. Specifically, the reviewer should recuse himself or herself from reviewing any manuscript authored or coauthored by a person with whom the reviewer has an obvious personal or academic relationship if the relationship could introduce bias or the reasonable perception of bias.
• The reviewer should treat the manuscript in a confidential manner. The manuscript should not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
• The reviewer should approach the peer-review job objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
• The author should indicate explicitly all sources that have supported the research and also declare any conflict(s) of interest.
• The reviewer should not use for his or her own research any part of any data or work reported in submitted and as yet unpublished articles.
• The reviewer should immediately notify the editor of any similarities between the manuscript under review and another paper either published or under consideration by another journal. The reviewer should immediately call to the editor’s attention a manuscript containing plagiarized material or falsified data.

Peer Review

Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff. Because unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including scientific research, peer review is an important extension of the scientific process.
A high quality peer review should evaluate a bio-medical article or publication on the following merits:
icon1 Importance – Does the research impact health and health care?
icon1 Usefulness – Does the study provide useful scientific information?
icon1 Relevance – Does the research apply to the journal’s readers and content area of interest?
icon1 Sound methods – Was the research conducted with sound scientific methods that allowed the researchers to answer their research question?
icon1 Sound ethics – Was the study conducted ethically ensuring proper protection for human subjects? Were results reported accurately and honestly?
icon1 Completeness – Is all information relevant to the study included in the article?
icon1 Accuracy – Is the written product a true reflection of the conduct and results of the research?

Peer Reviewer Selection

Scientific expertise:
Referees must have demonstrated expertise in the key topics of the study presented and/or the methods used. They must have published as lead authors at least 5 articles in international journals.
Level of experience:
Referees must have a formal appointment at PhD or MD level or higher at a recognized institution or organization.
Referees must not be working at the same institute as the authors, should not be close collaborators of the authors or in other ways personally, financially or professionally associated with them. Referees must declare any conflicts of interest in the published report.

Ethical Responsibilities

Responsiveness :
Reviewers should be able to complete reviews in a timely fashion.If a reviewer cannot meet deadlines, he or she should decline to perform the review or should inform the appropriate party of a problem so that an accommodation can be made.
Competence Reviewers should accept an assignment only if he or she has adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment. If a reviewer is unqualified, he or she may end up accepting a submission that has deficiencies or reject one that is worthy.
Reviewers should be as objective as possible in considering the article or application and ignore possible personal or professional bias. If a reviewer has a potential conflict of interest that is personal, financial, or philosophical and which would interfere with objective review, he or she should either decline to be a reviewer or disclose any possible biases to the editor or granting agency.
Material under review is privileged information and should not be shared with anyone outside the review process unless doing so is necessary and is approved by the editor or funding agency. If a reviewer is unsure about confidentiality questions, he or she should ask the appropriate party.
Constructive Criticism:
Reviewers should acknowledge positive aspects of the material under review, assess negative aspects constructively, and indicate where improvements are needed. The reviewer should be an advocate for the author or candidate and help him or her resolve weaknesses in the work.

Review Process

The following describes the submission and subsequent review process for Applis:
icon1Authors must submit manuscripts to Applis Journals in electronic form. An initial cursory review by the EIC will validate that the paper content is appropriate both in scope and quality. If the paper is deemed inappropriate, it will be rejected without review. Otherwise, the EIC will decide to process the paper directly or assign it to one of the associate editors.
icon1 The assigned editor performs an initial review of the submission, and may decide to desk reject it or put it through the review process. The grounds for a submission being desk rejected at this stage include, but are not limited to, simultaneous double submission, submission of substantially the same version of a previously published paper, the subject of the paper being outside the coverage scope of respective journal, the paper obviously lacking in breadth, substance, quality or completeness.
icon1 If the Editor decides to put the submission through the regular review process, he/she may retain reviewers for expert opinions and detailed useful comments for the authors. The number of reviewers may range between 2 or 4, with the Editor optionally serving as a reviewer. In all but the most unusual cases, 3 external reviewers will be contacted.
icon1 The Editor makes an editorial decision on the submission, using reviewers’ comments and recommendations as input (only as input). If the reviews are not clear or detailed enough, or the reviews diverge substantially, the Editor may communicate with the reviewers and seek additional verbal comments, and use them as additional input. The Editor may send the authors some or all of the reviewers’ comments, and may withhold certain comments from the authors at his/her discretion.
icon1 The editorial decision may be one of
1. Reject,
2. Request for a minor revision,
3. Request for a major revision,
4. Conditional accept, and
5. Unconditional accept.
In all cases of acceptance, the editor will seek input from the Editor-in-Chief.
icon1 If the author disagrees with the reject decision, he/she should communicate with the Editor and make his/her case and/or seek clarification. If the author wishes to appeal the decision, he/she should request the Editor to seek arbitration by the EIC. The EIC will review all materials and make a judgement on the merits of the appeal. The decision by the Editor-in-Chief is final.

Reviewer Benefits

Applis acknowledges the extreme importance of the reviewers’ role in guaranteeing the highest quality standards of our publications. As an appreciation for the valuable services and taking out time to review the manuscripts, for every peer review completed within the stipulated time, we will offer the reviewers with 20% discount on the Article Publication Charges, for one manuscript.