Editorial Policies
The URF Publishers' Journals carefully agrees to the ethical equity and morals, and would similarly direct a legitimate review whenever necessary depending on the situation. The journal ensures that recreating or advancing does not influence the editors' decision.
All research articles, review articles, case reports, and case series published in our journals are subjected to a rigorous peer review process by editors and reviewers. We only publish articles that have been approved by well-qualified researchers with expertise in the relevant field.
Peer review process
Reviewers Roles & Responsibilities
Confidentiality:
Reviewers should not share any information from an assigned original copy with untouchables without the Editor's prior permission, nor should they save information from a distributed composition.Capability:
The survey should be completed by a reviewer with relevant expertise. As it is assumed that the commentator will be a specialist in the individual field, a reviewer with insufficient mastery should be cautious and may decline for the process.Productive Evaluation:
Reviewer comments should highlight both the positive and negative aspects of the article, as well as the areas that need to be improved. A reviewer should clearly clarify and support their judgement so that Editors and Authors can understand the statement of the remarks. The reviewer must ensure that a recently announced perception or contention is accompanied by an appropriate reference, and should promptly notify the Editor if the person becomes aware of copy production. While commenting on an article, a commentator should not make any changes to the language. The assigned reviewer's judgement on each article should be made without any bias or individual perception.Fair-mindedness and Integrity:
The choice of the reviewer should be based solely on logical legitimacy, importance to the subject, and scope of the diary, rather than money, racial, ethnic origin, and so on of the creators.Disclosure of Conflict of Interest:
To the greatest extent possible, the reviewer should limit the conflict of interest. In such cases, the reviewer must notify the editor and explain the entire situation.Practicality and Responsiveness:
The reviewer is ethically bound to provide comments within the time frame specified and to be responsive to any questions raised by the editor, if any. Editors and Editorial Board members are responsible for maintaining the credibility of submitted work by publishing errata or changes recognising anything of significance, withdrawals, and expressions of concern as soon as possible. The editorial manager must adhere to the publisher's strategy rules and perform the duties assigned to them with integrity.Review Process: :
Editors are responsible for observing and ensuring the friend survey article process's decency, practicality, painstaking quality, and affability. The Editor's convenient proposal to the respective journals for covering pertinent and significant points is critical for the journal's development.Journal Role
Decision-Making:
He or she is qualified to make the final decision after consulting with reviewers or editorial board members.Impartiality:
An Editor should evaluate the submitted manuscript for information without regard for the authors' race, sex, sexual orientation, strict conviction, ethnic starting point, citizenship, or political viewpoint.Confidentiality:
The Editor or any Editorial staff member should not reveal any information about a submitted original copy to anyone other than the comparing authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, depending on the need and stage of processing.Publishers Role
URF Publishers' journal publications are subjected to a rigorous peer review procedure in order to present current and novel logical data in the best possible format. As a publisher, you should think about the following strategies: