Peer Review Policy


NDC E-JOURNAL follows a policy of double-blind, external peer review. In the double-blind peer review process, neither the reviewers nor the authors know the identity of each other. Double-blind peer review process enables an unbiased and accurate review of the manuscript.

Double-Blind External Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted for publication will undergo double-blind, external peer review by at least two peer reviewers. Scholarly subject experts are assigned as peer reviewers. The journal is committed to providing a rapid review process. From submission to first decision, the journal aims to provide a quick decision to its authors. Reviewers are given a tight deadline to review the manuscript. In most cases, the decision is made in less than three months.

Peer Review Process

After a manuscript is submitted, it is reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board. If the manuscript passes the editorial review, the section editor suggests the names of the reviewers to whom the manuscript can be sent for double-blind peer review. Once assigned, the reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide feedback to the section editor. NDC E-JOURNAL follows OJS Workflow Chart for ensuring accurate peer review process.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers will be selected based on their area of expertise and interests, their reputation, and our past experiences with the reviewers. The reviewers will receive online invitations to review the manuscripts along with the titles and abstracts of the manuscripts. Upon acceptance of the review request, reviewers will be able to download the assigned manuscripts and will have the access to online Review Form to provide their review feedback.

Reviewer’s Conflict of Interest

In all cases, reviewers are asked to declare any conflict of interest basing on the contents of the manuscript. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewers are requested to decline the review request.

Peer Review Time

We strive to provide an efficient review process to the authors with "submission to first decision" time being less than six weeks. We request the reviewers to help us in reducing the decision time as much as possible by providing the reviews on time. It is very frustrating for authors to wait for months or years to receive reviewers' comments for their manuscript. We request the reviewers to respond promptly to the messages from Editors and inform us if they are unavailable for any length of time.

Online Review Form

When a manuscript is sent to the reviewers for evaluation it will be accompanied by an online Review Form. The reviewers are requested to use the form to provide review feedback. Using a form will save time to review the manuscript and ensure a more structured and accurate review.

The Online Review Form has three sections – ‘General Comments on Manuscript’, ‘Comments to Authors’ and ‘Confidential Comments to Executive Editor’. Anything written in the ‘Comments to Authors’ will be sent to the authors. The reviewers can use the section ‘Confidential Comments to Executive Editors’ to send any confidential comments to the Executive Editor, which will not be transmitted to the authors. Reviewers are allowed to upload any necessary documents in the online Review Form.

Reviewers will complete the peer review process online. However, Reviewer can contact Executive Editor or Section Editors for any clarification during the process.

Peer Review Expectations

Reviewers are expected to provide a critical assessment of the manuscript about the concept of the study, relevance about current knowledge, content, language, and grammar. Reviewers will be asked to make a recommendation for publishing the manuscript. Please provide reasons for the recommendations.

If the manuscript needs changes for improvement before it is accepted for publication, please make the suggestions on how to improve it. If the comments are negative please help the authors in improving their manuscript by explaining weaknesses in scientific/empirical content or language. We do not tolerate any offensive language in the comments. We may edit the reviewer's comments for any errors in facts or language or to remove confidential information.

Peer Review Confidential

The review process is a confidential communication among the Reviewers, Editors, Editorial Staff, and the Corresponding Author. Please do not discuss any manuscript received for review with anyone not directly involved in the review process.

Decision on Manuscript

Based on the reviewer's comments the Executive Editor will give a decision about the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. The Executive Editor may decide to (1) accept the manuscript without revisions, (2) invite authors to resubmit the manuscript after minor or major revisions while the final decision is kept pending, or (3) reject the manuscript.

When the manuscript review process is complete, reviewers' and editor's comments will be sent to the author with the editorial decision. If the authors are asked to resubmit the manuscript with changes and response to comments, we may send the revised manuscript and author's responses to the reviewers for further review.

Privileges for Peer Reviewers

As an appreciation for the valuable services and taking out time to review the manuscripts, for every peer review completed within the stipulated time, NDC E-JOURNAL will offer the reviewers standard remuneration. As a further token of encouragements to the reviewers, we will acknowledge the reviewer's contribution in Editorial Thanks under Editor’s Note.

Editorial and Peer Review in Special Cases

In all cases, reviewers will be asked to declare any conflict of interest basing on the contents of the manuscript.

If a manuscript is submitted for publication by the Editor-in-Chief (author of the manuscript), the Editor-in-Chief will assign the manuscript to Executive Editor (Mr ABC) who will transfer the manuscript to one of the Associate Editors (Mr XYZ) without informing the Editor-in-Chief. The Associate Editor (Mr XYZ) will make all decisions about the manuscript and transfer the decision to the Editor-in-Chief (author of the manuscript) through the Executive Editor (Mr ABC). The Executive Editor will keep the identity of the Associate Editor anonymous from the Editor-in-Chief.

If a manuscript is submitted for publication by a member of the Editorial Board, the name of the handling editor will not be disclosed to either the editor (author of the manuscript) or the co-authors. Only the Editor-in-Chief and the Journal editorial staff will be privy to this information.

If a manuscript is submitted for publication by a current or past reviewer for the journal, the name of the handling editor will not be disclosed to either the reviewer (author of the manuscript) or the co-authors. Only the Editor-in-Chief and the Journal editorial staff will be privy to this information.

If a manuscript is submitted by an author who is a family member of the editor or personally related to the editor (e.g. friend, colleague) the manuscript will be handled by another editor.