Editorial and Peer Review Process
ayuBha Journal applies a structured editorial assessment and double-anonymous external peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, ethical integrity, relevance, and scientific validity of published articles.
3.1 Initial Submission Check
After submission, the editorial office checks the manuscript for:
- Completeness of the submission
- Compliance with the Author Guidelines
- Appropriate manuscript structure
- Presence of declarations, ethical approvals and consent statements
- Availability of required tables, figures and supplementary material
- Accuracy of author information and affiliations
- Suitability within the aims and scope of the journal
Manuscripts that do not comply with the basic submission requirements may be returned to the corresponding author before editorial assessment.
3.2 Editorial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor assesses the manuscript for:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope
- Scholarly merit
- Originality
- Methodological appropriateness
- Ethical acceptability
- Clarity and completeness
- Potential contribution to Ayurveda and related health sciences
A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it is outside the journal’s scope, substantially deficient, unethical, duplicative, promotional, or unsuitable for scholarly publication.
3.3 Similarity and Research-Integrity Screening
Submitted manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism-detection and other research-integrity tools. Similarity reports are interpreted by an editor and are not used as the sole basis for a decision.
The journal may also examine manuscripts for duplicate publication, unattributed copying, citation manipulation, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship, paper-mill indicators, and other forms of research misconduct.
3.4 Type of Peer Review
ayuBha Journal follows a double-anonymous peer-review process:
- The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
- The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
- Reviewer reports are treated as confidential and are not routinely published with the article.
- Reviewers should not attempt to identify authors.
- Authors should prepare anonymised manuscripts and remove identifying information from the main manuscript file.
3.5 Selection of Reviewers
Each research manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
Reviewers should:
- Not be members of the journal’s editorial staff handling the manuscript
- Have no disqualifying personal, professional, academic or financial conflict of interest
- Maintain confidentiality
- Provide objective, evidence-based and constructive comments
- Inform the editor if the manuscript is outside their expertise
- Decline the review when an appropriate review cannot be completed
Authors may suggest suitable reviewers; however, the journal is not obliged to invite them. The final selection of reviewers remains entirely with the editorial office.
DOAJ currently requires at least two independent reviewers for each scholarly article and requires the type and details of peer review to be clearly described.
3.6 Review of Supplementary Material
Supplementary files that contain data, methods, instruments, protocols, images, appendices or other material supporting the manuscript’s conclusions may be included in the peer-review process where relevant.
3.7 Editorial Decisions
Following peer review, the handling editor may recommend:
- Acceptance
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Resubmission for fresh consideration
- Rejection
Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed editorially, depending on the nature of the revisions.
3.8 Final Decision
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised handling editor after considering:
- Reviewer recommendations
- Authors’ responses and revisions
- Methodological and ethical considerations
- Compliance with journal policies
- Relevance and scholarly contribution
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor is responsible for the final publication decision.
The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript or promise acceptance within a fixed period. Authors will be informed when substantial editorial or review delays occur.
3.9 Editorial Independence and Conflicts
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and are independent of commercial, institutional, political or personal influence.
When an editor has a conflict of interest relating to a submission, that editor will not participate in its assessment or decision. The manuscript will be assigned to another suitably qualified editor.
3.10 Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members
Manuscripts authored or co-authored by an editor, editorial board member, reviewer, publisher representative or person closely associated with the journal will not receive preferential treatment.
Such submissions will be managed by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest. The author-editor will not have access to reviewer identities, confidential reports, internal correspondence, or the editorial decision-making process.
3.11 Special Issues
Articles submitted to a special issue are subject to the same editorial standards, ethical checks, external peer review and decision criteria as regular submissions.
The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for all special-issue content. Guest editors may not make decisions on their own manuscripts or on manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.
3.12 Exceptions to External Peer Review
The following content may undergo editorial review rather than external peer review:
- Editorials
- Publisher or journal announcements
- Obituaries
- Invited commentaries that do not present original research
- Corrections and corrigenda
- Expressions of concern
- Retraction notices
- Responses relating solely to journal administration
Any article that does not undergo the journal’s usual external peer-review process will be clearly identified.