Editorial Policy

Material submitted to International Journal of Yoga (IJOY) must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere in any language. IJOY follows double blind peer review process. The review process is online via www.journalonweb/ijoy.com and progress can be tracked by Authors. All the authors will receive acknowledgement email along with a link to track peer review process.

Editorial Review

IJOY accepts only online submissions via www.journalonweb/ijoy.com. All the submitted articles are reviewed by editorial team. If the article is not prepared as per the journal guidelines, it will be sent to Authors for ‘Technical check’ before sending it for peer review. Based on the merits, whether to Reject or send to peer review will be decided. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts without review because either the content is not appropriate for the Journal or the work does not represent a sufficient advance in knowledge to gain high enough priority for publication in the Journal. Such rejections must be approved by the Editor-in-chief, and are intended to avoid unnecessary work for reviewers, as well as to provide authors the opportunity of seeking more appropriate publishing options as soon as possible.

Peer Review

 After initial editorial review, articles will be sent for peer review. IJOY follows double blind peer review process. Manuscripts are reviewed by two or more referees. During manuscript submission authors can suggest reviewers. However, editorial team may not assign manuscripts to same reviewers. Reviewer assignment is based on subject area and competence. Generally, peer review process may take 4 - 6 weeks. Reviewer can suggest Reject, Accept with Revision or Accept without any change. He has to give detailed technical comments on the manuscript. He may reassess the manuscript after revision.

Revision of Manuscript

Editorial team will forward the Reviewers comments to Authors. Authors will receive email notification on change of phase. Authors have to revise the manuscript based on reviewer’s comments and submit ‘Response to comments’ and ‘Revised manuscript’.

Editorial Re-Review

Revised manuscript will be reviewed by editorial team to decide whether to Accept, Reject or send to reviewers for reassessment. To improve the quality of manuscript, it can be sent to Authors for Re-revision any number of times. Revision does not guarantee publication. If the authors fail to answer all the queries raised by Editorial team / Reviewer or to improve the quality of manuscript, it can be Rejected.

Technical and Language check

All the manuscripts will be checked for English grammar and spelling from experts at Wolter Kluwer / Medknow publishers. The edited manuscript will be sent to authors along with track changes. Once authors approve the changes, it will be proceeded to pagination.

Final PDF proof

Author Proof

Authors will receive PDF of a manuscript for proof check. Within one week authors need to submit corrections.

Editorial Proof

Editorial team will decide the article order and will go through entire issue before it goes online. After the approval from Editor-in-chief, issue will be uploaded on journal website.

Issue online

Authors will be notified by email when their manuscript appears online. Articles accepted and assigned to next issue can be viewed form ‘Ahead of print’ section on journal website.

Time line: Submission to Acceptance

From submission of manuscript to acceptance it may take around 3 - 6 months. However, sometimes it may take more time due to non-availability of reviewers, delay in submitting revision etc.

Appeals

Even in cases where editors did not invite resubmission, some authors ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, must take second place to the normal workload. In practice, this means that decisions on appeals often take several weeks.

Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the editors are convinced that the original decision was a serious mistake, not merely a borderline call that could have gone either way. Further consideration may be merited if a referee made substantial errors of fact or showed evidence of bias, but only if a reversal of that referee's opinion would have changed the original decision. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they were critical to the outcome. Thus, after careful consideration of the authors' points, most appeals are rejected by the editors.

If an appeal merits further consideration, the editors may send the authors' response or the revised paper to one or more referees, or they may ask one referee to comment on the concerns raised by another referee. On occasion, particularly if the editors feel that additional technical expertise is needed to make a decision, they may obtain advice from an additional referee.