Review process

A manuscript will be reviewed for possible publication with the understanding that it is being submitted to “The New Indian Journal of OBGYN” alone at that point in time and has not been published anywhere, simultaneously submitted or already accepted for publication elsewhere. All manuscripts received are duly acknowledged. The editor reviews the manuscript and makes the initial decision based on the quality of manuscript and editorial priority. The manuscripts that are unlikely to be of interest of the journal are liable to be rejected. Manuscripts that are found suitable for publication are sent to expert reviewers. The journal follows a double blind review process, where in the reviewers and authors are unaware to each other’s identity. The editor makes a final decision for publication based on editorial priorities, manuscript quality, review or recommendations and the discussion with the fellow editors. Upon acceptance of the manuscript, the authors will receive an acceptance letter to their correspondence address through email. The accepted article will be published online after receipt of the corrected proofs. This is the first publication citable. After release of the printed version, the paper can also be cited by issue and page numbers. Manuscript will not be returned or preserved.

Guidelines for Reviewers
On receipt of the invitation to review, you should immediately:

• Read the editor's transmittal e-mail, which includes the article abstract, to determine whether the subject is within your area of expertise and whether you can complete the review in the stated time period.
• Click the link in the e-mail and either accept or decline the invitation to review.

If you decline the invitation to review:

• Indicate why you are declining.
• If possible, please suggest a colleague who may be able to review the manuscript. If appropriate, the editor will send an invitation to review to that individual. You may not "transfer" your invitation to review the manuscript to a colleague.

If you accept the invitation to review, you will have access the complete manuscript and should immediately:

• Quickly skim the relevant portions of the manuscript and verify that it fits within the scope of the journal.

If you have either a time problem or a conflict of interest, contact the editor for instructions. He/she may extend your deadline or cancel the review assignment as appropriate. If your cursory examination reveals that the manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, indicate that in the Confidential Comments to the Editor.

Do not discuss the paper with its authors either during or after the review process. Although it may seem natural and reasonable to discuss points of difficulty or disagreement directly with an author, especially if you are generally in favor of publication and do not mind revealing your identity, this practice is prohibited because the other reviewers and the editor may have different opinions, and the author may be misled by having "cleared things up" with the reviewer who contacted him/her directly.

The manuscript provided to you for review is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Do not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and do not use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues. Details of a manuscript and its review must remain confidential, before, during and after publication.

In your comments intended for the author, do not make statements about the acceptability of a paper; suggested revisions should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Organize your review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, gives your overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific, numbered comments, which, if appropriate, may be subdivided into major and minor points. Criticism should be presented dispassionately; offensive remarks are not acceptable.

Reviewers criticisms, arguments, and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented. Do not make dogmatic, dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of the work. Substantiate your statements. Reviewer's recommendations are gratefully received by the editor; however, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honor every recommendation.