Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence: Editors have to mandatorily evaluate submitted manuscripts on the strength of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, irrespective of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not decided by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has complete control over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Confidentiality:
 Editors and editorial staff will not divulge any details about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: 
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the knowledge of authors. Relevant information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal gain. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions:
 The editors make sure that all submitted manuscripts being examined for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are erudite scholars in the domain. The Editor-in-Chief is mainly responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations:
 Editors evince a genuine interest in publishing scholarly articles. While publishing, on his part, takes necessary steps to avoid plagiarism. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be considered, if it is found after publication. Editors strictly adhere the COPE when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. In case, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction will be published in the journal.

Contribution to editorial decisions: 
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in enhancing their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential element of formal scholarly communication and considers as the focal point of scientific endeavor. AP-SMART shares the point of view of many that all scholars who like to contribute to the scientific process have a commitment to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness:
 Any invited referee who feels they are not fit to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be highly impossible, they must inform the editors and rule out the possibility of reviewing so that alternative reviewers can be approached.

Confidentiality: 
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be considered as such; they should not divulge anything related to publication. This implies that invited reviewers they need to have some professional ethics while reviewing.

Standards of objectivity: 
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated plainly with supporting arguments so that authors can make use of them for enhancing the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources: 
Reviewers ought to pin point relevant published work that has not been quoted by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the proper citation. A reviewer should also inform the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest:
 Supposing, invited referee has some difficulty in reviewing, it is their prime duty to intimate the editors in advance. In doing so, editors have every right to approach another reviewers. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the concurrence of the authors. Proper information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.