INNSpub Editorial Policy


Editorial board members of the International Network for Natural Sciences in connection with the Editor-In-Chief are bound with ethical and honest accountability to support the researchers and interested individuals. We want to provide a wide platform with humane support to newer researchers and creative individuals living in different parts of this world. We also want to develop a warm connection with such individuals who knows something special, novel and unusual about the scientific aspects of varied natural science and life sciences arenas.

The manuscripts submitted to INNSpub will be subjected to peer review and are therefore expected to be of high quality. Manuscripts submitted for publication consideration must have the ability to make a contribution to the field of natural sciences. This contribution may be small but meaningful and forms the rubric of what our reviewers and editors look for during the review process. INNSpub applies a very vigorous review process in determining which articles are accepted and eventually published. We strive for a rapid review and subsequent publication of high-quality manuscripts.

Editorial policy
INNSpub aims at rapid publication of high-quality research papers with a peer review process. Any article submitted to the INNSpub is subjected to peer review. Being open access and free to access the journal publishing system. Submitted articles are given up to the Editor-In-Chief after final checking, who examines the manuscript. If he feels and decides that the manuscript does not cover the aspects as per the journal guidelines or is out of the scope of the journal and with insufficient features to be submitted for review, he may directly reject the paper without any further processing. The concerned author will be informed through e-mail as early as possible about such failure to conformity and will always be supported for a newer submission. If Editor-In-Chief observes that the submitted manuscript is of enough quality and within the journal scope of the journals then it is sent to two experts in the field or reviewers. All manuscript reviewing editors have a right to reject or accept the manuscript under certain conditions. ‘INNSPUB network’ also holds the right to publish submitted articles without any processing. If the review process takes more time, authors will be informed by email of the reasons behind it.

Based on the reviewer’s recommendations, the decision takes by the Editor-In-Chief and through for the following actions which will be implemented as early as possible.

  • Publish the manuscript as it is
  • Publish the manuscript with minor changes
  • Review for major changes
  • Rejected manuscript

The corresponding author will be accountable to carry out all the changes suggested by the Editor-In-Chief of INNSPUB. If minor revision is required, authors are requested to return a revised copy as soon as possible within a short time while for major revision authors should return an adapted updated version within 07 days. Authors are requested to be patient and back-up in any form for the urgent publication may exclude the manuscript early before publication in the journal.

The whole start to end, manuscript submission to publication process may take a minimum of 2/5 to a maximum of 15 days which is definitely less time period as compared with other publishers of present years. Authors are requested to be patient and faithful to us during this time. As per ‘INNSpub’ policy, all the accepted papers will remain in line for publication. Authors are requested not to re-submit the rejected article to INNSPUB.

Editorial evaluation
All submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by at least two expert peer-reviewers. The assigned ‘INNSPUB’ editor reviews the manuscript and makes an initial decision based on the quality of the manuscript and editorial priorities. The assigned editor will determine either to send the manuscript to peer-reviewers or reject the manuscript. If a manuscript receives an even review by two reviewers, The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscript along with their recommendation and peer reviewers recommend to the Editor-in-Chief whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. The Editor-in-Chief, Editor, or a senior member of the editorial board will make a decision/report based on editorial priorities, manuscript quality, and reviewer’s recommendations. The decision is usually to request a revise the manuscript, reject the manuscript, or provisionally accept the manuscript. The decision/report letter is sent to the author informing him/her of the decision in the above step.

Reversion of author rights
Author(s) are advised to consider how the author(s) will utilize their work in the future and to keep certain rights (apart from rights towards patent, trademark, and design) to achieve their academic and professional objectives. Right of reversion Articles may be accepted for publication but then rejected during the publishing process, even after being publicly posted in “Articles in Press” form, in which case all rights revert to the author. As an author(s), the author or authors’ employer or institution retains certain rights by signing the author rights form:
Authors may want to retain rights to do the following:

  • Make instructional versions of the work, such as class notes, study aids, or electronic reserves.
  • Use a portion of the work as the foundation for a future publication
  • For a future publication, use a different or expanded version of the work.
  • Use the work in derivative works in the future, such as a dissertation or thesis.

If minor revision is required, authors should return a revised version as soon as possible within 15 days. If major revision is required, authors should return a revised version within 25 days.

Editorial process
All academic editors and reviewers act completely independently from the editorial office when making their decisions or suggestions on any manuscript. The editorial office respects and relies on their expertise for maintaining our high-quality and ethical publishing practice.

Once a manuscript is received, the managing editor and an academic editor from the journal will work together to perform a preliminary check concerning:

  • Whether the study fits the scope of the journal
  • Whether the identity and background of the authors are reliable
  • Whether the manuscript involves plagiarism (check using industry-standard software iThenticate)
  • Whether the requisite statements, pertaining to research ethics, conflicts of interest, etc., are included
  • Whether the methodology and/or data analysis are obviously defective
  • Whether the language and presentation are of a standard that permits peer review.
  • Manuscripts considered appropriate will be sent to reviewers for peer review, otherwise rejected directly.

Peer review
Peer review organized by INNSpub
INNSpub adopts the single-blinded peer review model, which means that reviewers remain anonymous in relation to each other and the authors. Reviewers invited to review a manuscript may come from the personal recommendation by the journal’s academic editor, the journal’s reviewer bank, journal archive databases, reviewer recognition platform etc.

Before selecting a reviewer, the editorial staff strictly complies with the following requirements:

  • The reviewer is active in the same field as the authors of the manuscript
  • The reviewer has no conflict of interest with any of the authors

Usually, a turnaround time of one week is granted to complete a peer review. A reasonable extension may be granted upon request. Reviewers can recommend acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. They are also required to provide necessary specific comments for the purposes of manuscript revision. At least two review reports are collected for every manuscript. When deemed necessary, a third report will be solicited.

The peer review process is organized by the in-house editorial staff with each step and communication recorded. Academic editors retain the right to check the reviewer’s identity and progress of peer review at any time. Although authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers when submitting their manuscripts, mainly for the purpose of enriching our reviewer bank, it is at the Editor’s discretion whether to invite the suggested reviewers. The reviewer’s institutional email address should be provided. If it is established that any author has deliberately suggested a fake reviewer, the manuscript in question will be immediately rejected as well as all future submissions from the same group. Authors may also suggest researchers whom they may wish to exclude from being potential reviewers.

Third-party peer review
When receiving a manuscript along with review reports offered by a third-party peer review service provider, we shall carefully check and verify: Academic editors will then arrive at an independent and unbiased decision.

Academic editor decision
We fully understand the importance of editorial independence. The editorial office will never interfere with an editorial decision in any manner. An acceptance decision can only be made by an academic editor from the journal—the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor, or an Editorial Board member.

Academic editors make their decision, selecting from the acceptance, author revision, and rejection, comprehensively considering the recommendations of all reviewers, which they may agree or disagree with according to their own expertise. If they make a decision that conflicts with the reviewers’ recommendation, they must justify their decision to the authors. For the sake of transparency, the academic editor’s name will be listed under the papers they have approved for publication.

Editorial evaluation timeline
All submissions are initially evaluated in depth by the scientific editors. Papers that are not deemed by the editors to be strong candidates for publication will be returned to the authors without detailed review, typically within 3–5 days. Otherwise, manuscripts will be sent to reviewers who have agreed in advance to assess the paper rapidly. The editors will make every effort to reach decisions on these papers within 1-2 weeks of the submission date. If revisions are a condition of publication, editors will carefully evaluate the reviewers’ comments and, whenever possible, will provide guidance on the important concerns to be addressed. We generally allow 15 days for revisions and consider only one revised version of the paper. Evaluations of conceptual advance and significance are made based on the literature available on the day of the final decision, not the day of submission. Accepted papers will be published in print within 15 days (up to 1 month) of acceptance and, in most cases, earlier in print or online. Any major changes after acceptance are subject to review and may delay publication.

Author revision
After peer review, the editorial staff will deliver all review reports to authors for manuscript revision. Revised manuscripts may be sent to the same reviewers for a second review depending upon whether they requested to check the revised version. They may provide further comments and in so doing request another revision. Usually, we allow at the most two rounds of major revisions for a manuscript.

Production, proofreading, and publication
After being accepted for publication in one of our journals, the manuscripts will go through the production process (including copy editing, language editing, and conversion to other formats, e.g., XML) and proofreading.

Language editing is carried out by professional native English-speaking editors. We encourage authors to seek help from native English-speaking colleagues for help prior to submission and after revision, and then we will help to edit the language of the accepted version for free. An additional fee would be charged if the author needs an extensive language editing service from our editorial office (Please refer to Fees for more details).

Before conversion to XML, authors have the last chance to proofread the final version. At this stage, only minor changes are allowed.

Author appeal
If authors wish to object to a decision of rejection after revision, they will have an opportunity to submit an appeal with detailed and solid point-to-point arguments. Another academic editor will be requested to review the manuscript and author’s representation, before making a final decision.

After publication
As we publish under the Gold Open Access model, the full text of the papers we publish is open to everyone. We welcome views and downloads and then feedback in terms of Comments or Letters to Editor.

If there is any suspicion that a paper may contain misconduct in research or publication, we shall start an investigation immediately; if proven, we shall take appropriate action.

When errors affecting the interpretation but not fully invalidating a study are found after a paper is published, a correction will be published separately. Correction is unnecessary under the circumstance that minor errors do not substantially influence the understanding of the study. We encourage authors to carefully proofread the final version to avoid the necessity for such correction after papers are published.

A retraction will be published if the scientific integrity of an article is substantially undermined or any misconduct proven. Before a final decision is made regarding retraction, a group of editors will investigate the paper in question on a case-by-case basis and will contact authors, reviewers, the academic editor, and even the third party (e.g., the authors’ institutions, etc.) where deemed necessary.

Book reviews
Authors and publishers are encouraged to send review copies of their recent related books to the following address. Received books will be listed as Books Received within the journal’s News & Announcements section.

Reprints may be ordered. Please contact me for more information on how to order reprints. An outcome of this principle is the significance of the scholarly archive as a permanent, historic record of the transactions of scholarship. Articles that have been published shall remain extant, exact, and unchanged as far as is possible. However, very occasionally situations may arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or even removed. Such proceedings must not be undertaken lightly and can only occur under exceptional circumstances, such as

Article retraction
The renunciation of an article by its authors or the editor under the advice of members of the scholarly community has long been an infrequent feature of the learned world. Standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by a number of library and scholarly bodies, and this most excellent practice is adopted for article retraction by INNSpub journals:

A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is available in the paginated part of a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list.
In the electronic edition, a link is made to the original article.
The online article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note. It is to this screen that the link resolves; the reader can then continue to the article itself.
The innovative article is retained unchanged save for a watermark on the .pdf indicating on each page that it is

Article removal
In an extremely limited number of cases, it may be compulsory to remove an article from the online database. This will only occur where the article is clearly insulting or infringes others’ legal rights, where the article is, or we have good cause to expect it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article is acted upon, might pose serious losses. In these circumstances, while the metadata (Title and Authors) will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating the article has been detached for legal reasons.

Article replacement
In cases where the research paper, if acted upon, might pose serious losses, the authors of the original research paper may wish to take back the faulty original and replace it with a corrected version. In these conditions, the procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the database retraction notice will publish a link to the corrected re-published research paper and the history of the document.

| Journals | Author Guideline  | Submission |