All manuscripts are subjected to a stringent double-blind peer review process. This is to uphold the high quality of papers published in this journal and ensure that the reporting of research work is truthful and precise.

  1. All submitted manuscripts are firstly handled by the Managing Editor, who will check the manuscript for plagiarism, at which stage it may be rejected if plagiarism is detected in the manuscript.
  2. After the plagiarism check is completed and results are deemed satisfactory, the Managing Editor will pass the manuscript to an Academic Editor. An academic editor will pre-check the article for the sustainability of the follow-up process, e.g., scientific innovation, consistency with the journal field, and completeness of the article. Usually, an Academic Editor refers to the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, and Guest Editors in the case of special issue submissions. Academic Editors are not allowed to participate in any review process of those submissions that may involve a conflict of interest, and the Editorial Office will appoint an Editorial Board member with no conflict of interest as a substitute. Submissions passing the pre-check stage will be forwarded to the peer review process by the Academic Editor.
  3. A minimum of 2 independent-external reviewers will be selected according to their expertise and suitability to the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers should feed back their comments and recommendations (Accept, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review or Reject) to the Academic Editor.
  4. External reviewers’ reports along with a review of the Academic Editor are recommended to the Editor-in-Chief, and the Editor-in-Chief will make a final decision on the paper and the Managing Editor will inform the author of their decision, adding comments to the authors to make improvements in their research or paper.
    • If the decision is to Accept Submission (no amendments required by authors), the manuscript will be sent to the production stage.
    • If the  Editor-in-Chief suggests Revisions Required (minor revisions), authors are given a maximum of 2 weeks to revise and resubmit the article.
    • If the Editor-in-Chief suggests Resubmit for Review (major revisions), authors are given a maximum of 4 weeks to revise and resubmit the article for the second round of review.
    • If the decision is to Reject Submission, the author will be notified, and the rejected manuscript will be archived and the peer review process ends.
  5. An accepted paper will be sent for copy editing, layout editing and proofreading before publication. Correspondence between the authors and editors will be required at this stage in order to improve the language and/or look of the article. After the production stage is completed, authors are required to check the PDF file of the final version before the article is published. EnPress Publisher will register a DOI for the article after publication, and the article is immediately accessible to the public.
  6. Authors may appeal for a rejected submission. Appeal requests must be made by writing an email to Editorial Office of the journal (infowaims@gmail.com/Editor@waims.co.in) with detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ remarks. Decisions on appeals are final and no further consideration will be made.

Note: Authors can recommend reviewers (relevant information should be given, e.g., name, personal link, email address, etc.). The editorial office decides whether to invite the recommended reviewers. Authors also have the right to provide an avoidance list.

Review Process
WAIMS follows peer review is to continue the novelty and excellence of research work by out filtration of plagiarized and poor quality research manuscripts. Peer evaluation promises research quality . The review process is described in the steps below:
Step 1: The editorial staff receives the manuscript from author(s).
Step 2: The editorial staff format the manuscript ( eg removing names, self references, acknowledgements and other information that may reveal the identity or affiliation of the author(s)).
Step 3: The Chief Editor assigns the formatted manuscript to 3 reviewers.
Step 4: The reviewers submit their feedback on acceptance/modification or rejection of the manuscript.
Step 5: The reviewers feedback is sent to the author(s).
Step 6: In case of acceptance/modification the authors are requested to comply with reviewers comments. A final camera ready paper is requested from the author(s)
Step 7: The author(s) are advised to complete the article processing charges (APCs) and copyright requirements.