Before You Start

Before submitting your manuscript, please verify that the format meets the requirements of your target journal.

When the format requirements of the target journal have been met, then check the manuscript according to the checklist. When you are ready to submit, please send your papers.

Peer Review Process

When the editorial office receives a new submission, the manuscript is given an identification number. The editorial staff then performs an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its topical relevance, adherence to the formatting guidelines, and absence of plagiarism in both textual and scientific content.

If the manuscript passes this initial assessment, it is forwarded to an Associate Editor with appropriate expertise in the subject area or study design. The Associate Editor is responsible for identifying at least 2 external peer reviewers with expertise in the topic or specialty of the paper. The peer review process may require 2 to 4 weeks before the decision is reached. The authors then revise the paper, as needed, based on the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

After the authors submit their revision, the manuscript undergoes another peer-review, or it will be sent to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision, if appropriate. If the paper is accepted, the preparation stage for publication then begins.

After Acceptance

When a manuscript is accepted, the author must sign a license to publish that will allow HillPub to publish the article. The article is then sent for copyediting, after which the author is asked to confirm the copyedited paper. The confirmed paper is entered online for publishing in advance, and at the same time, the paper is typeset. The author is asked to confirm the typeset PDF to ensure that there are no errors. The final PDF is then entered online.

English Language Editing

·Editors with a research in your subject

·Standard service and additionally corrects logic and structure gaps

·Free re-editing or a money-back guarantee if rejected for language-quality

For this service, please send emails to: contact@hillpublisher.com.

After Publication

The articles will be published in PDF and HTML format. The PDF that is available online is exactly the same as the printed hardcopy. All accepted papers will be published online and in printed forms. All the accepted papers of the journals will be processed for indexing into different citation databases that track citation frequency/data for each paper.

Author Responsibilities

Reporting Standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behavior and is never acceptable. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others used in a research project must always be given. Further, it is the obligation of each author to provide prompt retractions or corrections of errors in published works.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Publication and Authorship Practices

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors. The sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as coauthors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All co-authors must be clearly indicated at the time of manuscript submission. Requests to add co-authors after a manuscript has been accepted will require approval of the editor.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that has any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author(s) must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Additionally, manuscripts should adhere to the principles of the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki regarding research study involving human or animal subjects.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

There are many professional activities of physicists that have the potential for a conflict of interest. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. It should be recognized that honest error is an integral part of the scientific enterprise. It is not unethical to be wrong, provided that errors are promptly acknowledged and corrected when they are detected.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate correction statement or erratum.

Instructions for reviewers

Objectives of Peer Review

The objective of peer review is to provide constructive but rigorous encouragement regarding the scientific content and English language quality of a report. All comments and suggestions of our peer reviewers are given in a respectful tone, and returned to the journal’s editorial office in a timely manner. Peer reviewers also help to ensure the ethical integrity of each manuscript, by pointing out any suspected or identified cases of plagiarism, either scientific or textual, in whole or in part.

Evaluation Criteria

Specifically, reviewers should consider whether all submissions adhere to the six criteria for educational scholarship defined below (Glassick et al., 1997) and are generalizable in nature (i.e., the materials can be implemented at another institution without additional effort, cost, or explanation).

Specifically, reviewers should consider whether all submissions adhere to the six criteria for educational scholarship defined below (Glassick et al., 1997) and are generalizable in nature (i.e., the materials can be implemented at another institution without additional effort, cost, or explanation).

CLEAR GOALS:

The author explicitly states the educational objectives of the work from the perspective of the target audience; the objectives are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, and Realistic.

ADEQUATE PREPARATION:

The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work.

APPRIOPRIATE METHODS:

The author uses a suitable approach to meet the stated educational objectives of the work.

SIGNIFICANT RESULTS:

The author achieves the goals and contributes substantially to others (e.g., learners, colleagues) and to the field in a manner that invites others to use the work.

EFFECTIVE PRESENTATION:

The author effectively organizes and presents the work sufficiently clearly that others can easily emulate/use and build upon it.

REFLECTIVE CRITIQUE:

The author thoughtfully assesses the work and uses review/critique from other sources to refine, enhance, or expand the original concept.

Reviewer Responsibilities

All reviewers at least are Ph.D. holder. Reviewers must commit to being timely, fair and professional in conducting their reviews. Each reviewer will receive electronic access to article submissions in the HPG journals and they will need to complete on-line evaluations. They are barred from reviewing articles submitted by professional colleagues employed by the same organization. HPG journals’ reviewer review at least 1 paper/issue relevant to his/her area and post call for papers to relevant websites. Also it is expected that he/she must refer more reviewers.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Reviewers should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation.

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Duplicate/Redundant publication plagiarism involves the submission or publication of a study and/or its results and findings more than once. This type of plagiarism includes publishing a study and/or its results and findings in another language or with the information only slightly modified from another publication written by others or by the authors themselves (known as self-plagiarism). Duplicate/Redundant publication can result from simultaneous submission of an article; therefore, the Hill Publishing Group requires that all authors of manuscripts submitted for consideration of publication provide written assurance that the submitted manuscript is not under consideration nor published elsewhere.

Peer Review Policy

Most journals use peer review to aid decisions related to acceptance of a paper for publication. For authors planning to submit to peer-reviewed journals, HILL PUBLISHING GROUP INC offers an independent pre-submission review service.

This service should speed passage of the paper through the target journal’s peer review.

Editors-in-Chief may assess the quality of your research design and give practical suggestions for revisions of your study or report. Please contact our editorial office if you would request pre-submission review.

Editor Responsibilities

Publication Decisions & Accountability

The primary responsibility of an editor will be to edit manuscripts after they have been peer-reviewed. The editor will ensure that revisions have been completed if requested by peer reviewers. The editor will also make sure that manuscripts are grammatically correct, consistent in style, readable, free of plagiarism or other scientific misconduct, and must fulfill the license agreement and copyright transfer policies of HPG journals. The editor of a journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and/or the policies of the publisher, as well as, by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

Fair Play

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure, Conflicts of Interest, and Other Issues

The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in HPG journals.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

The editor should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. The editor should recuse himself/herself from handling manuscripts (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. The editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

To that end, it is essential that all who participate in producing the journal conduct themselves as authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers in accord with the highest level of professional ethics and standards.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors are required to declare any and all potential conflicts of interest. Please see our Reviewer Expectations for what constitutes a conflict of interest. If an author of a submission under consideration has a primary appointment at the editor-in-chief's institution, decisions regarding that submission will be made by the depty editor or an associate editor.

Join as an Editor-in-Chief

Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief:

Benefits of the Editor-in-Chief:

Agreement:

Termination:

It is expected that the Editor-in-Chief will complete the term as stated. This agreement may be terminated at any time based on following conditions.

Join as an Editorial Member

We are seeking professionals to join our Editorial Board. You will be entitled following benefits while working with us as an editorial board member of the journal.

If you are interested in being an editorial board member for the journal, please contact: contact@hillpublishing.org.

Become a Reviewer

Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publication process, and as a reviewer you will gain valuable experience in scientific publishing. We invite you to become a reviewer of our journals. Some benefits of being a reviewer:

Being a reviewer opens doors to incredible opportunities. Review services will enhance your knowledge of professional standards; and quickly earn the respect of your peers.

The other potential benefit of being a reviewer is that you will be preferred considered to be an editorial board member.

The reviewers who need financial support could enjoy 20% discount to publish their articles in HPG.

In order to provide a good review, a thoughtful and well-balanced report with suggested improvements for our authors, reviewers must be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.

If you are interested in being an editorial board member for the journal, please contact: contact@hillpublishing.org.

Qualification & Requirement

1. Requirements for a potential reviewer

2. Requirements for a potential editorial member

3. Requirements for a potential Editor-in-Chief

Benefits & Responsibilities

You are invited to be a part of Hill Publishing Group journals as a member of editorial board or reviewer and you are requested to read the terms and conditions carefully.

1. Benefits

2. Responsibilities

We need our editorial board members and reviewers to be key figures in their professions to have some experience of publishing articles. A reviewer's comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article so they play an important role in peer review process. All the members are requested to test out the articles submitted to them without any bias to increase the quality of our journals. There is no hard and fast rule to analyse an article and it depends upon the worthiness, quality and originality. While verifying the article, you have to go through following points:

3. Agreement

4. Termination

The Hill Publishing Group offers consistently high standards of care to its authors. This page features testimonials from a selection of our authors , detailing their experiences with our publishing services.

What authors say about publishing in our journals