Publication Policy & Ethics

Peer Review Policy

Articles published in Interpretations undergo double-anonymous peer review, whereby both author(s) and reviewer(s) are unknown to each other. Generally, a minimum of two independent reviews are required for each article. Based on feedback from peer review, the Editor makes editorial decisions on individual manuscripts. Interpretations is committed to ensure that all works published here are of highest quality and they would be scrutinized under highest ethical standards; the authors are expected to uphold high ethical standards.

Interpretations endorses the Ethical Guidelines for Peer-Review as set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Please check the following link for details:

Instructions for Authors

Authors must—

— present their research findings clearly and honestly; there should be no fabrication or manipulation of data, and no falsification of facts;
— describe their methods as much clearly as possible without any ambiguity;
— cite sources accurately and in accordance with this journal’s Guidelines for Submission;
— ensure that all permissions (if needed) have been obtained for all images, graphics, and supplementary materials prior to its publication;
— immediately inform the editor of Interpretations any error/inaccuracy or any misrepresentation found within the manuscript after submission; also, authors must provide corrections of mistakes;
— adhere strictly to the Instructions for Authors and they must stick to the guidelines for submission.

Authors must certify that the manuscript submitted—

— has NOT been published before;
— is NOT publicly available online on any forum in any format;
— is NOT submitted anywhere else for consideration for publication until a decision is made here;
— is written in its entirety by the author her/himself;
— contains only original and accurate information;
*A template for Declaration by the Author is given here.

Review Process

  • All research papers submitted to Interpretations are subject to screening and double-anonymous peer-review;
  • The Chief Editor reserves the right to reject any paper or reject to send it for peer-review without assigning any reason;
  • Gross negligence of the editorial requirements as given under Guidelines for Submission would result in prompt rejection of the submitted manuscript;
  • To comply with the double-anonymous peer-review identities of the reviewers and authors would be kept concealed; any query regarding this would result in rejection of the paper;
  • The authors of accepted manuscripts would be contacted after the reviewers have submitted their report; the authors would be informed about the status and reviewers’ comments/suggestions and change/modification according to the suggestions is to be made before publication;
  • The review process may take a period of eight to nine weeks and there will be no rapid review; since we do not believe in rushing our reviewers regarding intellectual matters we request the authors to keep patience.
up arrow