Editorial policies

These policies apply to all seven Aaranya Scholarly journals. Where a journal page says something different, this page is the reference. Questions: info@aaranyascholarly.com.

Peer review

All research articles, reviews and case reports are double-anonymous peer reviewed: reviewers do not see the authors’ names or affiliations, and authors never learn who reviewed their work.

How a manuscript is handled

1. Screening. The Editor-in-Chief checks scope, completeness, ethics and competing-interest statements, formatting and similarity to published work, and appoints a handling editor. A manuscript may be declined at this stage (“desk rejection”); the reason is always given.
2. Review. The handling editor invites independent reviewers with expertise in the subject. A decision to accept needs at least two completed reviews. In exceptional cases a managing editor may accept with fewer; the reason is recorded on the editorial file.
3. Decision. Accept, minor revision, major revision (a new review round) or decline, with the reviewers’ comments for the author.
4. Revision. Every revised manuscript must come with a point-by-point response to the reviewers. Reviewers in the next round see that response.

Editorials, perspectives and letters to the editor may be accepted by the Editor-in-Chief without external review. Research articles never are.

Choosing reviewers

• Reviewers are independent of the journal’s editorial team: an editor or Editor-in-Chief of a journal never reviews for it.
• A reviewer is never an author or co-author of the manuscript. Reviewers at the same institution as an author are avoided; where an editor judges there is no real conflict, that judgement is recorded.
• Authors may suggest reviewers. Editors are free not to use them and never rely on author-suggested reviewers alone.

The invitation

A reviewer is first sent the title and abstract only, and asked to accept or decline. The invitation is open for 7 days. On accepting, the reviewer declares that they have no conflict of interest; only then do they receive the manuscript, with the authors’ names and document properties removed.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

• Treat the manuscript as confidential. Do not share it, discuss it, or use its content before publication.
• Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools: that discloses unpublished work to a third party.
• Decline if you have a conflict of interest, lack the expertise, or cannot meet the due date.
• Be specific and courteous. Comments for the author should help them improve the work; confidential comments for the editor are not shared with the author.

Conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest exists when a personal, professional or financial relationship could influence, or appear to influence, judgement about a manuscript. Declaring one is not wrongdoing; hiding one is.

Authors

Authors declare all funding and any financial or personal relationships relevant to the work when they submit. The declaration is published with the article.

Reviewers

Reviewers declare that they have no conflict before they receive a manuscript, and decline if they have one: for example recent collaboration with an author, the same institution, a competing project, or a financial interest.

Editors

• An editor who is an author of a manuscript takes no part in handling it: they cannot screen it, choose its reviewers, see the reviewers’ identities, decide on it, or sign off the issue it appears in. The system enforces this.
• Manuscripts by an editor, Editor-in-Chief or managing editor of the journal are handled by an editor with no connection to the work and reviewed by at least two external reviewers. If published, the article carries a statement of the author’s editorial role.
• Editors decline to handle manuscripts from close collaborators, colleagues at their own department, or competitors, and pass them to another editor.

Authorship and contributions

We follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria. Every author must have:

1. made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; and
2. drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and
3. approved the final version to be published; and
4. agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

People who contributed but do not meet all four criteria are acknowledged, not listed as authors. Gift, guest and ghost authorship are not acceptable.

• The corresponding author handles communication with the journal and confirms that all co-authors have agreed to the submission.
• Changes to the author list after submission (adding, removing or reordering) need the written agreement of every author and the editor’s approval, with a reason.
• Artificial intelligence tools cannot be authors: they cannot take responsibility for the work.

Use of artificial intelligence

Authors

Authors who use generative AI tools in writing the manuscript, beyond basic grammar and spelling checks, or in producing data, images or code, must say so in the methods or acknowledgements: which tool, and for what. Authors remain fully responsible for the content, including its accuracy and any references. AI-generated images are not accepted except where they are the subject of the research.

Reviewers

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to AI tools (see Peer review) and are responsible for every word of their report.

The journals

We use automated assistants, and every one of them only advises or drafts; people decide:

• Pre-screening of new submissions (completeness, formatting, statements, scope fit, a preliminary similarity check). Authors can opt out when they submit, with no effect on the decision. Manuscript text is processed by Google Cloud Vertex AI under terms that do not allow it to be used for training; author names and contact details are not sent.
• Typesetting of accepted manuscripts into the PDF and web versions. The author’s words are not changed, and the author checks a proof.
• Issue covers and editorial drafts, which the Editor-in-Chief edits and approves. AI assistance is disclosed on the issue page.

No manuscript is accepted or rejected by software.

Research ethics and data

• Research involving people, human data or tissue, or animals must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee, named in the manuscript with the approval reference. Research with people needs their informed consent (and consent to publish any identifiable information).
• Clinical trials should be registered in a public registry before enrolment, with the registration number given.
• Manuscripts must be original, not published elsewhere and not under consideration by another journal. Preprints on a recognised preprint server are acceptable; tell us when you submit.
• We encourage a data availability statement saying where the data supporting the results can be found, or why they cannot be shared.
• Plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification and image manipulation are handled following the COPE flowcharts, which may include contacting the authors’ institution.

Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions

A published article is the version of record. It is never silently changed or removed. Problems found after publication are handled openly, following the COPE retraction guidelines, with a dated notice linked to and from the article:

• Correction: an error that does not affect the findings (for example a mislabelled figure or an author’s affiliation). The article is corrected and the notice says what changed.
• Expression of concern: serious doubts that are being investigated or cannot yet be resolved. Readers are alerted while the investigation continues.
• Retraction: the findings are unreliable (through error or misconduct), the work was published elsewhere, or there is plagiarism or an unresolvable ethical problem. The article stays online, clearly marked as retracted, with the reason.

Authors who find an error in their published work should tell the editorial office as soon as possible. Anyone else can raise a concern as described under Appeals and complaints.

Appeals and complaints

Appealing a decision

If you believe a decision to decline your manuscript was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding of the work, or a failure of process, you may appeal once, from your submission page, giving your grounds. Disagreement with the reviewers’ judgement alone is rarely enough.

• An appeal is decided by the Editor-in-Chief or a managing editor who did not take the original decision. They may consult the reviewers or seek a further opinion.
• If the appeal is upheld, the manuscript returns to the stage it was declined from. If not, the original decision stands. Either way you receive a written explanation.
• The decision on an appeal is final.

Complaints

Complaints about how a manuscript was handled, about the conduct of an editor or reviewer, or about a published article can be sent to info@aaranyascholarly.com. Please include the manuscript or article title and as much detail as you can. A complaint is handled by someone not involved in the matter complained about, and we reply in writing.

If you are not satisfied with how we handled a complaint about publication ethics, you can refer it to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Withdrawing a manuscript

• Before acceptance you can withdraw a manuscript from your submission page, giving a reason. Reviewers are told they are no longer needed. You are then free to submit it elsewhere.
• After acceptance withdrawal is possible only with the editor’s agreement, through the editorial office, with your reasons: by then reviewers and editors have invested work, and the record must show why.
• After publication an article is not withdrawn; see Corrections and retractions.

Fees and waivers

• There is no fee to submit and no fee for peer review.
• An article processing charge of ₹3,000 + GST (₹3,000 for authors outside India) is due only after acceptance. Editorials and other invited editorial content carry no charge.
• Authors who cannot pay, for example students, authors without research funding, or authors from low-income countries, can request a waiver from their submission page after acceptance.
• Fees are kept apart from editorial decisions: the charge does not exist until a manuscript is accepted, editors deciding on manuscripts do not handle payments or waivers (a managing editor does), and the acceptance stands whatever happens to the fee. Production begins once the charge is paid or waived.

Open access and licensing

All articles are published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0). Anyone may read, download, share and adapt them, for any purpose, with credit to the authors and the source. Authors keep the copyright in their work.

Last updated 5 October 2026. Aaranya Scholarly LLP.