For Editors
Contents
1. Editorial Process, Peer-Review, and Production
All manuscripts submitted to Techno Sky Publications journals are evaluated through a structured and rigorous peer-review system to maintain scholarly quality. In line with the journal’s policies, a single-blind review approach may be adopted, where reviewers are informed of the authors’ identities, but the authors do not have access to reviewer information.
Secure access is provided to reviewers and external editors, enabling them to perform their assigned responsibilities within the system. Following submission, the Managing Editor supervises the complete editorial workflow, including the coordination of peer review, communication of editorial decisions, management of revisions, and processing of acceptance or rejection.
This workflow further extends to copyediting, proofreading, and preparation of the manuscript for publication.
Editorial responsibilities during the review stage are handled by designated individuals such as Editorial Board Members, Associate Editors, and Guest Editors, who ensure the integrity and quality of the evaluation process.
The authority for final decisions on manuscripts lies with the Editor-in-Chief or an Editorial Board member authorized to act on their behalf.
After acceptance, the Managing Editor oversees the production phase, which includes language refinement, formatting, and final readiness for publication on the journal’s platform.
Journals are published in annual volumes and may follow different release models, including monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, or continuous publication schedules.
Peer-Review Policy
Learn more about Techno Sky Publications’ peer-review policy and editorial evaluation procedures.
View Peer-Review Policy2. Responsibilities of Handling Editors
2.1 Publication Decisions
The editor holds full and independent authority in determining whether a submitted manuscript should be accepted for publication. Decisions must be based on scholarly merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's readership.
Editorial judgments should align with journal policies and comply with legal and ethical standards. Editors may consult peer reviewers or fellow editors before reaching a final decision.
2.2 Impartial Evaluation
Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely on academic quality and intellectual contribution without discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, religion, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.
Diversity, inclusivity, and balanced representation should be considered when recommending editorial board members.
2.3 Integrity of Journal Metrics
Editors should avoid practices intended to artificially improve journal performance indicators or citation metrics.
References should only be recommended when academically relevant. Authors must never be pressured to cite specific publications without legitimate scholarly justification.
2.4 Confidentiality and Ethical Use of Information
Editors are responsible for maintaining strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts and reviewer communications.
Unpublished information, data, ideas, or findings obtained through peer review must never be used for personal benefit without explicit written authorization from the author.
2.5 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Editors must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest and update these declarations whenever new conflicts arise.
Editors must recuse themselves from handling submissions where personal, professional, or financial interests may compromise objectivity and fairness.
3. Editorial Board Composition
The Editorial Board consists of distinguished academics and subject experts who contribute to the strategic direction, editorial policies, and academic quality of the journal.
3.1 Editor-in-Chief
Supervises the peer-review system and guides the journal's academic vision, editorial standards, and long-term strategy.
3.2 Associate Editor-in-Chief
Works closely with the Editor-in-Chief in maintaining academic quality and addressing editorial matters requiring senior review.
3.3 Editor
Supports journal operations and assists with manuscript handling, peer-review coordination, and editorial management.
3.4 Associate Editor
Coordinates peer review, evaluates reviewer comments, and provides recommendations regarding editorial decisions.
3.5 Editorial Board Member
Provides subject expertise, assists with peer review, supports journal development, and helps attract high-quality submissions.
3.6 Early Career Editorial Board Member
Contributes to editorial activities while representing the perspectives of emerging researchers and early-career academics.
4. Guest Editor
Guest Editors play an important role in developing special issues by bringing together high-quality research on focused themes. They contribute both to defining the scope of the issue and to managing the editorial and review processes to ensure academic excellence.
4.1 Responsibilities of Guest Editors
Define and refine the theme of the special issue while clearly outlining its academic relevance and significance.
Identify suitable topics and invite qualified authors in collaboration with the journal’s editorial team.
Establish timelines for manuscript preparation, peer review, revision, and final submission to ensure timely publication.
Collaborate with the Editor-in-Chief, journal editors, and co-Guest Editors regarding contributor selection and author communication.
Conduct preliminary assessments of submissions and guide manuscripts through the review process using subject expertise.
Provide any additional information or support requested by the editorial office to ensure quality and completeness.
Promote the special issue through academic networks, collaborations, events, and relevant opportunities.
4.2 Conflicts of Interest
Submissions authored or co-authored by Guest Editors may be included in a special issue; however, such contributions must not exceed 25% of the total published content within that issue.
Guest Editors must disclose all actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence, or appear to influence, editorial objectivity.
Guest Editors must not participate in the evaluation or editorial decision-making process for manuscripts in which they are authors, co-authors, collaborators, or have competing interests.
Such manuscripts must be handled independently under the supervision of an alternative editor appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.
Even where a Guest Editor believes a conflict will not affect judgment, withdrawal from the process is expected to avoid any perception of bias and to preserve confidence in the peer-review system.
