Moraft is an official corporation maintaining both Journals and conferences. We give priority towards the enhancement of knowledge sharing from both budding up and experienced researchers to explore the world of innovation in propagating their original research works. Being glad to provide outlets for discussion and widely disseminating the best research representative knowledge all over the globe. We ensure that peer review system remains transparent, rapid, and fair by double blind peer review process that can bring out the competing ideas, debate, and questions around world of science.
Peer review is meant to enhance the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of published manuscripts and to assist editors decides which manuscripts to publish in our journals. Peer review doesn't guarantee manuscript quality and doesn't reliably detect scientific misconduct.
Peer reviewers should be experts within the manuscript’s content area, research methods, or both; a critique of literary genre alone isn't sufficient. Peer reviewers should be selected supported their expertise and skill to supply top quality, constructive, and fair reviews. For research manuscripts, editors may, additionally, seek the opinion of a statistical reviewer. Peer reviewers advise editors on how a manuscript could be improved and on its priority for publication. Editors decide whether and under which conditions manuscripts are accepted for publication, assisted by reviewers’ recommendations and suggestions.
Peer reviewers are sometimes purchased their efforts but usually provide their opinions freed from charge, as a service to their profession. Editors should require all peer reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, related to a particular manuscript and should take this information into account when deciding how to use their review. Generally speaking, people with an immediate financial interest within the results of the manuscripts shouldn't be reviewers.
To be considered peer reviewed, should have obtained external reviews for the manuscripts to publish, including all original research and review articles. Some editors request referee for other forms of articles, like opinion pieces (commentaries/editorials) and correspondence. To have been peer reviewed, a manuscript should are reviewed by a minimum of one external reviewer; it's typical to possess two reviewers and sometimes more opinions are sought.
All submitted manuscripts may not be considered out for review as some of the manuscripts that seem unlikely to be published in any other journals may be returned to authors without external review, to allow authors to submit the manuscript to another journal without delay and to form efficient use of reviewers’ and editors’ time.
We often state our journal’s referee policies, including which sorts of article are peer reviewed and by what percentage reviewers, within the instructions for authors. Moraft also periodically publish statistics describing our journal’s review process, like number of manuscripts submitted, acceptance rate, and average times from manuscript submission to rejection letter to authors and, for accepted manuscripts, time to publication.
Moraft strictly follows double blind peer -review policies for each and everyone's manuscripts submitted and follows the procedures outlined below.
All manuscripts submitted for publication in Journal are firstly evaluated by the Plagiarism software along with sensitivity towards the topics covered in the manuscript along with the originality of the article.
After initial evaluation, the manuscripts are sent to a minimum of two external Editors/ Reviewers for peer-review. If necessary, the number of Reviewers is often increased/decreased by Editorial. The Reviewers are chosen from Editors and Reviewers board that have consistent knowledge and expertise in the relevance of the topics chosen. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, contribution to the literature, presentation of results and support for the conclusions, and appropriate referencing of previous relevant studies. Reviewers might accept the manuscript, reject the manuscript or might require a revision for style and/or content within stipulated time mentioned by the Editorial.
When a revision is required by the Auhtor(s) we consider the suggestions and feedback offered by the Reviwers, and are sent back for a revised version of manuscript within one month. Revised manuscripts returned after are going to be considered as a replacement submissions and review process is started from initial steps.
If minor revision is required, authors should return a Revised Version as soon as possible within one week. If major revision is required, authors should return a Revised Version within two to 3 weeks.
After all favorable opinions of reviewers and editorial is formed the take ultimate evaluation process. Henceforth put to PDF team to return with a Proof PDF document and then approved to be published.
We follow a consequent double blinded peer- review process of publication that can be completed within 45 days of time to publish an article.