Navigation
1. Joining the Editorial Board
2. Remuneration for Editorial workflow
Joining the editorial board
Qualified persons around the world that are interested in joining the editorial board and playing editorial roles, should show their interest by filling the editorial partnership form. You will be required to attach your CV, Biography and a picture of you.
The Editorial Board Selection Criteria:
The management team of New Spring Journals selects editorial board members based on the following criteria:
1. Qualifications and professional experience,
2. The number of publications and scientific impact achieved,
3. The Journal’s need for international representation,
4. The need to maintain a high journal standard,
5. The need to produce quality and relevant papers.
6. An editors should be a professor, associate professor or an assistant professor with a PhD.
7. Reviewers should have a PhD or MSc.
8. Language translators should have a PhD or MSc.
Editorial Board Appointments:
The management of New Spring Journals will review the CV of applicants to make selections for editorial appointment. On appointment, New Spring Journals will send an appointment letter to selected persons through email.
Remuneration for editorial workflow
New Spring Journals is not profit based and charges a minimal amount to process and publish articles. Therefore, we do not offer remuneration to editorial members.
However, New Spring Journals is committed to appreciating every effort made by editorial board members and invited reviewers to improve papers, enhance our editorial process, journal quality, and international representation. The contribution of editorial members is an immerse sacrifice that can hardly be paid for, but the journal will be issuing certificates of recognition to editorial members as well as partial waiver of the article processing fee.
The remuneration for Language translators is on case by case basis and will be discussed after the application.
Guidelines for Editors
- The Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based majorly on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal. 2. The Editor should make unbiased decisions on all manuscripts offered for publication, with no regards to gender, race, ethnic origin, religious belief, citizenship, or political viewpoint of the author(s). 3. The editor should process manuscripts promptly. 4. The editor has the complete responsibility and authority to accept a paper for publication or to reject it. Our new editorial process gives room to other editorial board members to give their decisions before the editor gives the final decision. New Spring Journals may review decisions made by editors that go contrary to the decision of the majority (reviewers and editorial board members).
5. The Editor should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers.
6. The Editor’s need to accept or reject a manuscript should not be influenced by pressure from the editor’s employer, the journal’s owner or the publisher.
7. If mistakes are discovered that can affect the interpretation of data or information presented in the article, with credible evidence that the information on a published paper is incorrect, the editor should facilitate publication of a corrected paper by informing the editorial office, pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.
8. Editors should take suspected cases of plagiarism seriously.
9. Editors should be observant for images or information in a manuscript that might have cultural significance or cause offence.
10. The Editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors. The information, arguments, or interpretations in an unpublished manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research without the consent of the author. Editorial duty for any manuscript authored by the editor and submitted to the journal should be passed on to some other qualified Editorial team members.
Guidelines for Reviewers
- Although the review process is an essential step preceding article publication, reviewers are obligated to be fair, logical and unbiased when reviewing an article. This should not be an opportunity to discredit a manuscript for selfish reasons. Reviewers should be able to explain and support their judgments properly so that the editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Reviewers that default by sending unfair and biased comments will be blacklisted. 2. A Reviewer who observes that he/she is not sufficiently qualified or lacks the time to review a manuscript should immediately alert our editorial office. The reviewer can also suggest other reviewers that are qualified to review the manuscript. 3. A Reviewer that has accepted to review a manuscript should be responsible to give a feedback after receiving the manuscript. It is an unethical and a suspicious behavior for reviewers to stop communicating after receiving a manuscript. 4. A Reviewer should comment on the originality of the study and its importance to the field of study. Reviewers should be able to have learnt something new if the research question and study is original. If the research question is unoriginal because, related work has been published previously, please give references. The research question should easily be identified and clearly understood. Also, reviewers should indicate if the conclusion from the study is clear, understandable and valid.
5. A Reviewer should ensure that the data of the study is authentic, adequate and well utilized. Please indicate unsuitable use of data and state your reasons. Alternative data sources may as well be suggested. In addition, elaborate on your reason, if you think that more evidence is required to back up the results.
6. A Reviewer should ensure that the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) is balanced, supported by the data and without exaggerations.
7. A Reviewer should be watchful to observe authors failure to cite relevant works. A reviewer should check if the authors provided adequate references where necessary.
8. A reviewer should alert the editorial office of any suspected plagiarism or any other unethical conduct. Reviewers should provide a link to the published manuscript, in a case of plagiarism.
9. A Reviewer should answer these questions: Are the methods suitable? Is it well defined and detailed enough to allow peers in that field to reproduce the work? Have the experiments been properly performed and are they adequate. Are the experimental techniques consistent and suitable? Please give sufficient details if further improvements are to be made on the study method. Also clearly explain in detail, if more experiments should be carried out.
10. A Reviewer should be observant of the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is strongly related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. The reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
11. A Reviewer should not review a manuscript that has been authored or co-authored by a person personally or professionally connected to the reviewer if the connection would lead to a bias judgment of the manuscript.
12. Manuscripts received by a reviewer should be treated as confidential. It should not be exposed or discussed with others except, on rare occasions to persons from whom specific guidance may be sought; in such a case, their identities should be made known to our editorial office.
13. A Reviewer must not disclose or use the manuscript’s content.
14. A Reviewer should please return the review comment promptly, usually within ten (10) days of receiving a manuscript. If reviewers require additional time, the reviewer should contact the editorial office promptly for additional time or to assign other reviewers.
15. A Reviewer of a manuscript may sometimes to be contacted by our editorial office to re- evaluate the manuscript and give a binding decision after the author has returned the revised manuscript.