Editorial Policy and Review Process

OMICS International aims to inform and help physicians, scientists, health care providers and those in related professions advance quality and innovation in patient care. OMICS International is committed to fostering edu-cation, and meaningful exchange of information and commentary to help create an environment for constructive criticism, free exchange of ideas, and earnest contribution to the field and the scientific literature. OMICS International expects authors to adhere to the highest standards of integrity in research, and the communication of research results and findings. OMICS International is committed to the protection of intel-lectual property. Reviewer team members will not use ideas from or show another individual(s) the manuscript or supplementary materials they have been asked to review without the explicit permission of the manuscript’s author, obtained through the Editors-in-Chief or Associate Editors. OMICS International expects all submissions to include data, analysis and commentary that are honestly and accurately reported according to the accepted best practices of scholarly publishing, and congruent with Pulsus’s mission statement to publish the work of medical/scientific researchers in a manner that exemplifies the highest standards in research integrity.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Conflicts of interest may arise in a variety of situations and, therefore, the author is required to inform the Editor-in-Chief of such conflict. A conflict of interest may exist when a manuscript under review puts forth a position contrary to the reviewer’s published work, or when a manuscript author or reviewer has a substantial direct or indirect financial interest in the subject matter of the article. All authors must disclose any commercial associations or other arrangements (eg, financial compensation received, pat-ent-licensing arrangements, potential to profit, consultancy, stock ownership, etc) that may pose a con-flict of interest in connection with the article. This information will be made available to the editor and reviewers, and may be included as a footnote at the editor’s discretion Because it is the Journal’s policy to engage in a double-blind review process, a conflict of interest may also exist when a reviewer knows the author of a manuscript. The reviewer should consult the appropriate Editor-in-Chief in such situations to decide whether to review the manuscript. A conflict of interest does not exist when an author disagrees with a reviewer’s assessment that a problem is unimportant or disagrees with an editorial outcome.

ETHICS OF HUMAN AND ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS

If human subjects are involved, the text must indicate that experiments or testing were conducted in accordeance with the Declaration of Helsinki ; that all participants provided informed consent; and that the protocol was approved by the institution’s ethics review committee. If experimental animals are used, provide a statement in the text to indicate that all procedures followed were in accordance with institutional policies.

Editorial Process & Peer Review Policy

The success of OMICS International is a direct reflection of our dedicated team of peer reviewers who critically evaluate manuscript submissions. These reviews assist the Editorial Boards in making publication decisions, and guide authors in strengthening their professional writing. Reviewers provide objective, insightful and rigorous critiques of submitted manuscripts, enhancing the clinical relevance and scientific quality of articles published in Pulsus journals, and helping physicians, scientists, health care prfessionals and those in related professions advance quality and innovation in patient care.

All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the protocol outlined below. Please note that special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer-review protocols involving, for example, guest editors, conference organizers or scientific committees. This will be communicated to the contributing authors in these cases.

INITIAL MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION

The Editors-in-Chief evaluates all manuscripts on initial submission. Manuscripts rejected before being sent to review generally have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are assigned to an Associate Editor, who will select two (or more) peer reviewers with expertise in the subject matter.

TYPE OF PEER REVIEW

OMICS International generally uses ‘double blind’ reviewing, in which the referees and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

SELECTION OF REFEREES

OMICS International attempts to prevent conflicts of interest by not inviting reviewers from the same institution(s) as the authors. However, previous relationships or places of employment may not be apparent. In our invitation to potential reviewers, we ask that they decline to review if they know or can reasonably guess the identity of the author.

REFEREE REPORTS

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript/study:

• Is original, relatively novel or at least not a repetition of well-known or previously reported phenomena andtreatment strategies;
• Is methodologically sound;
• Adheres to appropriate ethical guidelines;
• Reports results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions; and
• Correctly cites and references previous relevant work.

Editorial decisions are not based on counting votes or performing numerical rank assessments. The strength of thearguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors are evaluated. OMICS International’s primary responsibilities are toits readers and to the scientific community at large and, in deciding how best to serve them, each journal must weigh the claims of each manuscript against the many others also under consideration. However, when reviewers agree toassess a manuscript, the journal considers this a commitment to review subsequent revisions; the journal endeavours to keep consultation to an absolute minimum to avoid drawing authors and reviewers into any protracted disputes.Reviewers will not be sent revised manuscripts unless the authors have made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.
Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction/revision is not part of the peer-review process.

HOW LONG DOES THE REVIEW PROCESS TAKE?

Once the appropriate reviewers have been identified, they are sent an invitation and asked to respond within one week to 10 days (at which point it will be sent to an alternate). Reviewers who accept the invitation are asked to complete the review within 14 days. Reviewers who agree to evaluate manuscripts but do not return comments by the due date may be replaced with alternates to maintain the timelines of review process. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, an additional expert opinion will be sought.

FINAL REPORT

There are several possible decisions: to accept or reject the manuscript outright; to request minor or major revisions; and to accept or reject after revision(s). Referees and/or Associate Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript. This decision will be sent to the author in addition to any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees. Reviewers and editors are expected to provide comments and critiques in a confidential, constructive, prompt and unbiased manner appropriate for their position of responsibility. Collegiality, respect for the author’s dignity, and the search for ways to improve the quality of the manuscript should characterize the review process.

The ideal review should answer the following questions:

• Who will be interested in reading the article, and why?
• What are the main claims of the article and how significant are they?
• Are the claims novel? Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
• Are there other experiments or work that would strengthen the article?
• Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
• If the manuscript is unacceptable, is the study sufficiently promising to encourage the authors to resubmit?
• If the manuscript is unacceptable but promising, what specific work is needed to make it acceptable?

APPEAL PROCESS

If an author wishes to appeal an outcome of peer review, they should contact the appropriate Editor-in-Chief and detail his/her concern. Appeals will only be successful if reviews were inadequate or unjust. Should this be the case, the manuscript will be sent to alternate reviewers for re-review.

REVIEWER TOOLS

Reviewers are sent invitations through the respective Editorial Tracking system. Questions about submitting comments through Pulsus (the publisher) may be directed to contact@pulsus.com.

BECOMING A REVIEWER FOR OMICS International JOURNALS

If you are not currently a referee for a Pulsus jounal but would like to be added to the list of referees, please contact the respective Editor-in-Chief.

REFUND AND CANCELLATION POLICIES

• No refunds will be processed for an Accepted articles/articles considered for review process.  
• No refunds will be processed if author withdraws his/her paper from consideration after 5 days of submission and the same applies if he/she declines to revise and resubmit the article.
• No refund or cancellation of charges once the paper is published.
• No refund will be processed if the paper is removed from website due to Copyright issues.

WITHDRAWAL POLICY

The Author is free to withdraw the manuscript without paying any withdrawal charge if the author(s) requests a withdrawal of manuscript within 5 days of submission.
If the author(s) requests a withdrawal of manuscript, after the peer review process or in the production stage or published online; then minimum article processing charges  is chargeable upon withdrawal.