Related Links
Useful Links
    For more information, please contact :
    Frequency: Quarterly
    ISSN Online: 2581-6853
    Language: English


    has shifted to the new website. Please browse...

    Guidlines for Authors
    Review Process

    Manuscripts not adhering to journal guidelines will be returned to authors without scientific evaluation. Submitted manuscripts adhering to journal guidelines are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an Editor, who will assign them to reviewers. The review process is single blind. The Editor prepares a decision letter according to the comments of the reviewers, which is sent to the corresponding author. All non-reviewed manuscripts are sent back within 15 days and the decision letters of manuscripts are sent once the review process is over.

    Fig 1: Review Process

    The peer review process is an essential element of the publication cycle. All manuscripts submitted to Grassroots Journal of Natural Resources will undergo extensive peer review by our Editorial Board Members and blind reviews. Flow diagram in Fig 1 is the editorial workflow that all submitted manuscripts undergo.

    Initial Evaluation
    All manuscripts are processed using Grassroots Institute’ in-house Manuscript Tracking System. Once we receive a manuscript, our Editorial Office runs a plagiarism check and screens the manuscript to decide whether or not it should be sent for peer review. It is therefore very important for authors to make sure that their manuscript is well written and is of high quality. During the initial screening, our Editorial Office mainly checks the following:

    1. Does the manuscript fit the journal’s scope?
    2. Is the content of the manuscript is good enough to make it worth reviewing?
    3. Is the manuscript compliant with the journal’s Instructions for Authors?
    4. Has the manuscript been submitted or published elsewhere?

    If manuscript fails to meet the journal's requirements, it will be rejected and the author would be intimated within 15 days.

    Peer Review
    After manuscripts clear the initial screening, they are sent to Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief assigns manuscripts to a Handling Editor (usually member of the Editorial Board). The handling editor will send the manuscript to a minimum of 3 reviewers for peer review. Reviewers submit the evaluation results along with their recommendations as one of the following actions:

    1. Accept
    2. Minor Revision
    3. Major Revision
    4. Reject

    We have a single blinded peer-review process in which the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are, but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are. Our journal acknowledges the researchers who have performed the peer-review and without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible. We try our best to adhere to the guidelines laid out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also forward the guidelines to our reviewers to ensure the highest ethical standards of evaluation.

    Final Decision
    In order for the handling Editor to provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript, at least two completed reviews are required. Once the reviewers have submitted their comments, the handling Editor will be notified. The handling Editor will then send her/his recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief delivers and informs the author of the final decision.
    If the manuscript is conditionally accepted, author(s) will be required to revise their manuscript according to the Editor’s suggestions and submit a revised version of their manuscript for further evaluation.

    Our Editorial Workflow allows editors to reject manuscripts due to a number of reasons including inappropriateness of the subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of the results. We ensure high quality and unbiased peer-review by sending the manuscript for evaluation to a range of reviewers in different parts of the world