Anuscripts processed speedily, they insist on quickly track processing. If such requests are accepted it’s going to deprive a lot of other authors who can not afford to pay extra to obtain their manuscripts processed and published speedily. It can be a very tricky choice at occasions and 1 has to be particularly cautious since it should not give an impression that the journal is most thinking about financial gains only. Reviewing the Reviewers: Editors aren’t supposed to function as “Post Office” and as stated by Ahmad Badar “An editor is the reviewer-in-chief, chief justice, option finder, mentor and guide”, Hence the editor has to carry out these multiple jobs as well as try to maintain each one, authors, reviewers and readers content, not an easy job. Among the crucial job of the Editor associated with manuscript management is reviewing the reviewers. A few of the reviewers are superb, do an exceptionally excellent job guiding the authors the way to enhance their manuscripts. Utilizing track changes, a number of them even edit, correct and recommend changes which the authors can just accept via the click of a button if they agree. Many of the reviewers fill in the Reviewers Performa which can be quite beneficial and provides ease in reviewing but you will find others who will communicate their comments by means of e-mails sending their complete testimonials via attachments. We usually do not forward these reviewers’ comments as such for the authors but critique their reviews. While their comments are saved as such but those forwarded for the authors will be the edited version because at times some of the harsh comments need to be toned down, many of the comments are meant for the editor and not authors. All this takes great deal of time. For the authors the manuscript management software’s are quite valuable and in some situations, they make the modifications, corrections, additions and return the manuscript inside hours and in some MedChemExpress VEC-162 circumstances within the subsequent two three days and then all this gets piled up for the Editorial team to appear at it further. Nevertheless, the authors are once more quite impatient and want that the Editor convey 
them the choice of acceptance as immediately as they have responded which is not doable. In case the reviewers have produced track modifications and created some other comments and ideas around the manuscript, the authors are asked to produce each of the modifications within the exact same file which is becoming sent to them and highlight all changes or additions made. Not merely that they are also asked Pak J Med SciNo. pjms.pkto convey by means of a separate communication how they have responded to these comments point sensible. After the revised manuscripts are received, they’re looked at by the editorial group as well as the Editor himself. In the event the response is satisfactory, an acceptance e mail is sent for the author PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18653711?dopt=Abstract instantly in some circumstances within hours or the subsequent day. A few of these manuscripts have to be revised several instances(in some cases half a dozen instances) before they’re lastly accepted for publication and it might take from twelve to eighteen months from the time of submission to final publication. There’s no straight forward Acceptance or Rejection. If the manuscripts are finally rejected following peer review, they may be provided motives for rejection. We practice open peer critique technique for the last 
seven years as well as the reviewers comments are conveyed for the authors together with the name of people who have reviewed it. Given that a vast majority of our reviewers are from overseas, we under no circumstances have had any trouble. Only within a handful of cases, the reviewers from Pakistan wished that th.Anuscripts processed speedily, they insist on quick track processing. If such requests are accepted it’s going to deprive quite a few other authors who cannot afford to pay extra to obtain their manuscripts processed and published immediately. It can be a really challenging selection at times and 1 must be incredibly careful since it shouldn’t give an impression that the journal is most serious about financial gains only. Reviewing the Reviewers: Editors are certainly not supposed to operate as “Post Office” and as stated by Ahmad Badar “An editor is definitely the reviewer-in-chief, chief justice, answer finder, mentor and guide”, Therefore the editor has to execute these multiple jobs as well as endeavor to retain each one particular, authors, reviewers and readers satisfied, not an easy job. One of the vital task of the Editor associated with manuscript management is reviewing the reviewers. Some of the reviewers are outstanding, do an exceptionally good job guiding the authors ways to increase their manuscripts. Working with track modifications, a few of them even edit, appropriate and suggest adjustments which the authors can just accept through the click of a button if they agree. Several of the reviewers fill in the Reviewers Performa which is quite valuable and presents ease in reviewing but you will find others who will communicate their comments by means of e-mails sending their comprehensive critiques by means of attachments. We don’t forward these reviewers’ comments as such for the authors but review their reviews. Although their comments are saved as such but these forwarded for the authors are the edited version mainly because at occasions several of the harsh comments have to be toned down, a number of the comments are meant for the editor and not authors. All this requires great deal of time. For the authors the manuscript management software’s are rather useful and in some instances, they make the modifications, corrections, additions and return the manuscript within hours and in some instances in the subsequent two three days after which all this gets piled up for the Editorial team to appear at it further. Nevertheless, the authors are again very impatient and want that the Editor convey them the decision of acceptance as promptly as they have responded that is not possible. In case the reviewers have produced track modifications and made some other comments and ideas around the manuscript, the authors are asked to make all the changes inside the exact same file which can be being sent to them and highlight all modifications or additions created. Not just that they’re also asked Pak J Med SciNo. pjms.pkto convey through a separate communication how they’ve responded to these comments point wise. As soon as the revised manuscripts are received, they are looked at by the editorial group as well as the Editor himself. In the event the response is satisfactory, an acceptance e mail is sent to the author PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18653711?dopt=Abstract promptly in some situations inside hours or the next day. Some of these manuscripts have to be revised a lot of instances(in some cases half a dozen times) before they may be ultimately accepted for publication and it may take from twelve to eighteen months in the time of submission to final publication. There is no straight forward Acceptance or Rejection. In the event the manuscripts are ultimately rejected right after peer assessment, they’re offered MedChemExpress MSX-122 causes for rejection. We practice open peer evaluation system for the last seven years plus the reviewers comments are conveyed to the authors along with the name of people who have reviewed it. Considering that a vast majority of our reviewers are from overseas, we never ever have had any difficulty. Only within a few cases, the reviewers from Pakistan wished that th.
