The Journals follow Double Blinded Review process under the Peer Review. In this process both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous to each other.

In the abstract field of knowledge, setting a parameter could be incongruous with the immediate thought. But, one has to follow a certain norm while adjudging an article, when it comes to precision and appraisal. These are as follows:

  • Confidential: Confidentiality is a key of expertise.
  • Blind review: Blind review is meant for fair-dealing.
  • Stipulated time: We put high value on time.
  • Originality: We are synonymous with authenticity
  • Structure: We aim at structural review.
  • Implementability: Examples are better than precepts and examples are even wittier when they are exercised. Suggestions have to be implemental than being only passively manipulative.
  • Research: A multi-disciplinary journal has an extensive research area.
  • Language: Language is the career of idea.

Reviewers Guideline

We believe that to ensure the quality of research, we need to take the help from our reviewers. Without their help, ensuring the quality and timeliness of the publication is not possible. After accepting to review the manuscript sent to you, kindly make sure that you complete the review in a week time and not later than that. Reviewers should put themselves into authors’ shoes and should service their need from that perspective. You need to be sure that you are competent enough to review the article in time. Another thing you would be interested to know is the fairness of review. You must be fair and just in reviewing a submitted research article, a case study, a book review or a literature survey.

Make sure the article you have been asked to review truly matches your expertise

Reviewers are required to provide scientific review based on following principles:

  1. Quality: Clear and rigorous selection criteria which emphasize the identification of quality.
  2. Autonomy: that the decisions of the peer review process are the sole criteria for selecting scientific excellence.
  3. Objectivity: That the process of peer review is free of bias.
  4. Transparent: That the principles which guide decisions concerning the structure and process of peer review are visible.

Thus reviewers can expect Journals to:

  • Preserve their anonymity
  • Deliver guidelines on what constitutes a reviewing conflict of interest
  • Demand them to review only submissions for which the editor feels they have expertise, and appeal only a restricted number of reviews over the course of a year
  • Give a reasonable length of time for a review, where the precise length of time depends on the publication
  • Not routinely ask them to make up for delays presented by other participants in the reviewing cycle
  • Not ask them to provide reviews for submissions that do not satisfy either specified publications requirements (e.g., page count restrictions) or which are obviously inappropriate for the publication
  • Acknowledge their efforts in the publication process, while preserving confidentiality of which submissions they reviewed
  • May Notify them of the editorial decisions for the submission, including the author-visible portion of reviews

And Journals expects Reviewers to:

  • Make known to the demanding editor any possible conflicts of interest
  • Review the submission by the agreed-upon deadline
  • Recognize the charter and reviewing standards and procedures of the publication
  • Read the complete submission carefully, prepare the review with care, apply skilled judgment, use suitable language in a review, and fill out provided review forms in full
  • Adequately document in their review the reasons behind their recommendations
  • Review subsequent revisions of a submission that they originally reviewed, should the editor feel that is appropriate
  • Preserve the confidentiality of the existence and status of submissions of which the reviewer becomes aware
  • Not use/practice results from submitted works in their works, research or grant proposals, unless and until that material appears in other publicly available formats, such as a technical report or as a published work
  • Not distribute/allocate/give a submission to anyone unless permitted by the editor handling the submission
  • Preserve the anonymity of the other reviewers, should they become known to that reviewer.

How to become reviewer?

We appreciate your interest and enthusiasm. Please send us your latest resume along with cover letter on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Copyright © FTMS Journal 2013-2021
This website best viewed in IE8 and above & Firefox at 1280 x 1024 resolution.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.