Guidelines

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 Articles will be rejected or withdrawn if ever found guilty of plagiarism.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 nesapublications@gmail.com. Advertisements do not however suggest that the journals endorses any of the products.

Reviewers Guidelines:

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:

  • are qualified to PhD level (or equivalent) or above in a relevant subject
  • are current active researchers
  • have one or more recent publications in peer-reviewed journals of comparable impact and reputation to our journals

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.

Financial

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. 

Other interests

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).

Recommended reviewers

We may ask authors to recommend suitable reviewers on submission of their manuscript. When recommending reviewers, the following points should be considered:

  • Authors should not recommend reviewers with whom they have a conflict of interest, for example, a close collaborator or colleague.
  • Recommended reviewers should not be at the same institute as any of the authors listed on the manuscript.
  • Institutional email addresses should be provided for recommended reviewers, wherever possible.

 

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.


Ethical responsibilities

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.


Reviewing procedure

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.

Adjudication

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.

Appeal process

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.

Reviewer anonymity

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:

  • Suitability of the article for the journal’s scope
  • Impact and novelty of the work
  • The length of the article – does it reflect the level of scientific content and fit within any relevant page limits?
  • Whether the article type is appropriate
  • The title – does it reflect the content and contain relevant search terms for discoverability?
  • The abstract – is it self-contained without reference to the main text?
  • Which revisions are major concerns preventing publication, and which are minor concerns the authors can easily resolve, and indicate this in your report

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:

  • The manuscript contains work which closely resembles other publications, or duplicates text and/or figures
  • You have concerns about the level of scientific rigour
  • The manuscript lacks sufficient novelty or is incremental (list any relevant publications in your report)
  • You suspect fragmentation of a substantial body of work into several short publications
  • You consider that a manuscript contains personal criticism of others
  • You have ethical concerns such as plagiarism or regarding approval for human or animal experimentation.
  • You wish to see any supporting data not submitted for publication, or any previous unpublished paper

 

Reviewer recommendations

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:

  • Accept
    • The manuscript would be suitable for publication in its current form (after copy-editing and proofreading).
  • Minor revisions
    • The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where appropriateThese changes could include referencing another work or a rewrite of a few sections.
  • Major revision
    • The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where necessary. These changes could include redoing experiments or a substantial rewrite of several sections.
  • Reject – encourage submission in another NESA journal
    • The manuscript is not suitable for the journal it was submitted to, but the content is good and could be suitable for a different National Environmental Science Academy (NESA) Journal.
  • Reject
    • The manuscript is not suitable and it should not be considered further.

Authors Guidelines:

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. 

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Manuscripts are to be sent by email to nesapublications@gmail.com

The authors must ensure that all necessary sections as mentioned have been included in the manuscript:

  • Title page: The title of the manuscript should be concise and informative. Title page must contain names, affiliations and email addresses of all the contributing authors. Affiliations are to be indicated as lower case superscript letter immediately after the author's name. All the manuscripts should have a designated corresponding author to whom all correspondence related to the manuscripts will be addressed. Full email address and postal address of the corresponding author is to be provided in the title page itself.
  • Abstract: The abstract should clearly communicate the very purpose of the manuscript, major results and conclusions. References should be avoided in the abstract. Unconventional abbreviations should be avoided, but if given they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself. The word limit of an abstract is to be limited to 200 words. A minimum of 5 and maximum of 7 keywords should be highlighted at the end of the abstract.
  • Main text: The main body of the article should have properly numbered sections as follows:
  • Introduction: This section should clearly contain the aim and objectives of the study with sufficient background.
  • Material and methods: A detailed methodology must be provided so as to enable an independent researcher to reproduce the results. Already reported protocols may be written briefly with appropriate reference. Any modifications to already reported methods should also be mentioned.
  • Results: Results should be clear and concise. Supporting figures and tables should be self-explanatory with adequate information in respective legends. Figures should be provided in TIFF or JPEG formats, with higher resolution of minimum 300 dpi. Tables are to be supplied in editable formats in .doc or .ppt files.
  • Discussion: This section is of utmost importance to elaborately highlight the intent of the entire manuscript. The discussion section should not merely be a repetition of the results; rather it must link the results to the objectives and substantiate the noteworthiness and novelty of the study, supported by references to previous results. A combined Results and Discussion section may also be presented instead of separate sections.
  • Conclusions: This section may be kept short with only the most essential findings forming a part of it.
  • Acknowledgements: All technical, intellectual and financial support must be properly acknowledged.
  • References: All citations in the text must be referenced at the end of the text, adhering strictly to Vancouver style of referencing.

Check Lists:

  • Manuscript in Ms Word containing text, acknowledgements, and conflict of interest and references.
  • Figures in TIFF/JPEG format.
  • Tables in editable format.
  • Manuscript in pdf version containing main text, acknowledgements, conflict of interest, references, figures and tables embedded within text at appropriate portion. PDF can be compiled by Author manually or can be done via this url https://www.ofoct.com/merge-doc-to-pdf