Advances in Astrophysics
Review and Publication
All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
The possible decisions include acceptance, revision, or rejection. There is no guarantee that a revised and re-submitted manuscript will be accepted. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
Authors must certify that the manuscript
1) is their original work.
2) has not previously been published elsewhere.
3) is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic, and must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. Also, authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
The submitting author is responsible for ensuring that the article's publication has been approved by all the other coauthors. It is also the authors' responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular institution are submitted with the approval of the necessary institution. Authors must notify the editors of any conflicts of interest, and must also report any errors they discover in their published paper to the editors. By submitting a paper the author understands and agrees that its copyright is transferred to Isaac Scientific Publishing.
Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author, and reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments, and should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Reviewers should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published paper.
Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. They have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article and should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain, and should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers, and should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources, and should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem, however, editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.