Herbert Publications endeavor to uphold the publication standards by its reputation and integrity. Acting as a medium in transmitting the scientific contributions with rapid and thorough peer review system, Herbert Publications strive to publish the best quality articles. With an objective to furnish optimal directions, It adheres COPE guidelines to maintain excellent publication standards and integrity through its stringent Peer Review Policy.


The reviewer is an eminent person with subject expertise and plays an essential role in the peer review process ensuring the integrity of all the published material. The whole process depends on the trust and involvement of the participating Reviewers. The efforts of Reviewers are the key to the objectives of a fair and timely review process for all of our manuscripts and publication of only the highest quality papers. All the participating Peer Reviewers should adhere considerate and ethical responsibility. Their constructive comments and reports will helps the Editor to take a decision on the manuscript. We greatly appreciate Reviewers for their help in meeting these important objectives. With respect to the Journal, more confined information is available from 'Reviewers' section on the corresponding Journal home page.

Peer Review Process

All the journals of Herbert Publications employ single blinded peer review process. In this process the author's names and affiliations will be revealed to the Reviewers, while the authors are kept blinded from Reviewer details. After the Editorial Review process, the handling Editor will solicit at least two expert Reviewers in the field with the title and an abstract of the manuscript to take up the peer review process. Reviewers are expected to give a prompt response when approached. This is intended to advance the correctness, clarity, and wholeness of manuscripts and helps editors to decide whether the manuscript has to be published or not. Reviewers should provide reviews with clear suggestions and honest corrections to the Editor who will again forward the review reports as such to the author.



  • Reviewers should respect the confidentiality and do not disclose the information until the manuscript is published.
  • Reviewers should protect individual data. They should not use the information for their own benefit or share with any other individual or organization.
  • Reviewers should agree to review the manuscript only if they have expertise in the subject area adequate for accurate assessment and give a constructive report.
  • Ensure that all authors have equal opportunity to publish and their origin, nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender or political beliefs do not influence the peer review process.
  • Reviews should be based on relevancy, integrity, scientific strength, potential interest, completeness, clarity and ethics in the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interests and take assistance from the Editor regarding any uncertain conflicts.
  • Reviewers should declare if they are involved in the submitted work in any manner and decline to review the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should notify the Editor if the manuscript has been already reviewed by them for any other journal and seek guidance whether to carry further or not.
  • Reviewers should notify the Editor immediately if they found any partial or whole information in the manuscript is plagiarized or infringed.
  • Reviewers should notify the Editor if they have any concerns in the study, ethical aspects or a misconduct in the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should not attempt to contact the authors regarding the manuscript without the permission from the Editor.




  • Please acknowledge promptly whether you can serve as a Reviewer or not
  • Decline if you have no subject expertise to carry the review process wholly
  • Reviewers are given 2 weeks to submit their review reports
  • Ensure proficient peer review process and submit reviews within the time-frame. Please inform the Editor if you cannot do so
  • Please do not delay the review process intentionally
  • Editor will take a decision on the manuscript even if at least two reviews were received within the time-frame regardless the third Reviewer's report.
  • If the first two received reviews are contrasting, then the Editor will have to wait for the third Reviewer's report to take a decision
  • Contact the Editor for any additional documents in support to the manuscript
  • Please do not edit any information from the manuscript content
  • Please be confident and provide sound, constructive and unbiased reviews
  • Please remember to acknowledge the good information in the manuscript
  • Reviews should be objective and should not comprise any personal accusations
  • Reviewers should clearly indicate if any confidential comments directed only to the Editor
  • Avoid using unfair language or offensive criticism which is inappropriate for professional communication
  • Please, keep a copy of the review documents for your use in case a revision is submitted by the authors
  • Please respond promptly with required information whenever the Editor contact you post review process regarding the reviewed manuscript
  • Please be aware of the Journal's policies and guidelines