The Journals: All the journals, administered by National Environmental Science Academy (NESA) are peer reviewed international journal envisaged to serve the world wide community of researchers and teachers. Published bi-annually, the aim is also to supplement the regular issues with special issues such as conference proceedings on relevant topics. The journals have an online presence at http://www.nesa-india.org/journals. The journal published wide array of articles at minimal cost, whatsoever, to authors and provides free access to all articles through its website. Hard copies of the journals are also available at nominal subscription charges.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions presented in the journals reflect the views of the authors and not of the NESA or journals or editors or international advisors or publisher and does not constitute endorsement by the journals or the society in any way. The journals or society does not assume any liability or responsibility for authenticity, correctness, accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information published here and is the sole responsibility of the authors.
Plagiarism: The authors must ensure that they shun plagiarism in any form, whether in text material or data presented. Authors must thoroughly check their articles for plagiarism using standard, international tools and available practice and the journal assumes no responsibility for plagiarism committed by authors. Articles will be rejected or withdrawn if ever found guilty of plagiarism.
Advertising Guidelines: Journals do accept classified advertisements from legal and well established agencies to promote the journals, as long as they conform to set policies of the journals and are related to the subject matter of the journals publications. Inquiries may be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org. Advertisements do not however suggest that the journals endorses any of the products.
Becoming a reviewer
To register as a reviewer contact the relevant journal office (post-submission queries) to ask to be considered for the position, and provide an up-to-date CV or résumé. Reviewers are selected for their expertise and experience. As a minimum, we will only consider as reviewers those who:
Code of conduct & conflicts of interest
Code of conduct
One of the foundations of the scientific profession is the acceptance by its members of a 'code of conduct', which outlines desired behaviour and obligations of members of the profession to each other and the public. Such a code of conduct seeks to maximise the benefits of science to society and the profession. The advancement of science requires the sharing of knowledge, even though this may sometimes forego any immediate personal advantage.
The publication of scientific research in journals is one of the fundamental ways in which the National Environmental Science Academy (NESA) servescience communities. Central to this service is the responsibility that editors, authors and reviewers maintain the high ethical standard relating to the publication of manuscripts.
Conflicts of interest
National Environmental Science Academy (NESA) should be informed of any significantconflict of interest that editors, authors or reviewers may have, in order to determine if any action may be appropriate (such as adding a declaration of an author’s conflict of interest to a published piece, or disqualifying a reviewer). Conflicts of interest are almost inevitable and it is not intended to attempt to eliminate these.
Editors, authors and reviewers of a manuscript should inform the relevant journal of any significant financial interest - recent, present or anticipated - in any organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the piece (for example, employment by such an organisation; funds for research; funds for a member of staff; fees for consulting; stock or share holdings; patent interests). If you have such an interest, you may have a conflict of interest, which should be declared.
An editor, author or reviewer may wish to disclose to the editor a conflict of interest that would be embarrassing if it became generally known (for example, an academic link or rivalry or a close relationship with, or a strong antipathy to, a person whose interests may be affected by publication of a manuscript).
We may ask authors to recommend suitable reviewers on submission of their manuscript. When recommending reviewers, the following points should be considered:
Conflict of interest statement
Please note that a Conflicts of interest statement is required for all submitted manuscripts. If no conflicts exist, please state that ‘There are no conflicts to declare' under a Conflicts of interest heading as the last section before Acknowledgements section.
In addition to adhering to the 'Code of conduct and conflicts of interest' guidelines reviewers have the following responsibilities.
Treat the manuscript as confidential: The manuscript should not be shown to, disclosed to, or discussed with others, except in special cases, where specific scientific advice may be sought; in that event the editor must be informed and the identities of those consulted disclosed. Information acquired by a reviewer from such a paper is not available for disclosure or citation until the paper is published
Destroy/erase the manuscript and to inform the editor should they be unqualified to review the manuscript, or lack the time to review the manuscript, without undue delay.
To judge the manuscript objectively and in a timely fashion: Reviewers should not make personal criticism in their reviews.
To inform the editor if there is a conflict of interest: Specifically, reviewers should not review manuscripts authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a close personal or professional relationship, if this relationship could be reasonably thought to bias the review.
To respect the intellectual independence of authors.
To explain and support their judgements so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments, and to provide reference to published work, where appropriate.
To inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and another either published or under consideration by another journal.
To ensure that all unpublished data, information, interpretation and discussion in a submitted article remain confidential and not to use reported work in unpublished, submitted articles for their own research.
To alert the editor if a manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarised material, falsified or manipulated data.
To only suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) own work where this adds value to the scientific aspects of the paper.
Not to retain or copy the submitted manuscript in any form; to comply with data protection regulations, as appropriate.
Not to use information obtained during the peer review process for their own or any other person’s or organisation’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
The reviewers' reports constitute recommendations to the appropriate editor, who takes the final action on manuscripts submitted. The reviewer should consider the work and assess its suitability for the journal to which it has been submitted using the general guidance provided in this section and the details to be found in the journal specific guidelines.
If the reviewer does not consider the manuscript to be suitable for the journal to which it has been submitted, they should consider whether the manuscript may be suitable for publication in an alternative National Environmental Science Academy (NESA) journal and clearly state any suggestions in the report.
In cases where reviewers are unable to assess the manuscript, the editor would welcome suggestions of alternative reviewers who may be able to assess the manuscript. In such instances, the reviewer should provide details of the alternative reviewer and the editor will send an invitation to review the manuscript. Reviewers should decline the invitation to review if there is any conflict of interest. If the reviewer has any ethical concerns regarding the work or the authorship then these must be brought to the attention of the editor.
The editor is responsible for all administrative and executive actions, and can accept or reject papers. Once a manuscript has been revised by the authors then it is the editor's duty to see that, as far as possible, agreement is reached between the authors and reviewers. The reviewers may need to be consulted again concerning an author's reply to comments, but further review is only undertaken when necessary.
If there is a notable discrepancy between the reports of the two reviewers, or if the difference between authors and reviewers cannot be resolved readily, a senior reviewer may be appointed as adjudicator. The role of the adjudicator is to consider the initial reports and provide a final decision on the manuscript based on these reports (and author comments where they exist) and their own thoughts on the manuscript.
When a paper is recommended for rejection, the editor will inform the authors. Authors have the right to appeal to the editor if they regard the decision to reject as unfair. Appeals are granted at the discretion of the editor. In such cases the editor will request a letter detailing the reason for appeal, as well as a full response to the reviewers’ reports. The manuscript will then be sent to a senior reviewer who has not previously evaluated the manuscript and who will offer a final opinion on the manuscript.
The anonymity of reviewers is strictly preserved from the authors, unless a reviewer voluntarily signs their comments to authors. A reviewer should never communicate directly with an author, unless and until such action has been agreed by the National Environmental Science Academy (NESA) through the editor.
Reviewers may disclose publicly that they have served as a reviewer for a named National Environmental Science Academy (NESA). However, a reviewer must not identify himself/herself as the reviewer of a specific manuscript nor disclose the contents of the submitted review to any individual or organization. This expectation of peer review confidentiality and anonymity applies both during and after the peer review process, without time limit.
Sharing of reviewer reports
When the editor makes a decision on a manuscript, reviewers are typically notified of that decision and are provided with the comments from all reviewers on the manuscript. The reviewers’ anonymity is preserved unless the reviewer has voluntarily signed their report. Reviewers are informed at the point of invitation to review if their report will be shared in this way.
How to review the manuscript
Information on the scope and standards of each journal can be found in the journal specific guidelines.
Please aim to submit your review promptly: the suggested deadline for receipt of the review is given in the invitation email. Please inform the editor as soon as possible if you are not able to submit your review by the deadline.
When writing a reviewer report please consider:
Please review all electronic supplementary information (ESI) provided.
Please answer the specific questions on the reviewer report form; they help to create a constructive report that will be of the most use to the editor when making their decision.
You don't need to provide detailed comments on language, grammar or spelling errors except where this makes the meaning of the science unclear.
Please inform the editor if:
Along with your comments on the review and answers to the editor’s questions, the report should contain a recommendation to the editor. Your options may include:
This section provides general guidance to authors on their responsibilities and the code of conduct they should follow when submitting manuscript to Bulletin on Physical Sciences (BPS) Journal.
Manuscripts are to be sent by email to email@example.com
The authors must ensure that all necessary sections as mentioned have been included in the manuscript: