Peer Review Policy

Publishing high-quality innovative research works is the main aim of MB International Scholar Press. All submitted book chapters or monographs undergo peer review before publication.


External double blind review is done for monograph manuscripts with a mission to ensure that they comply with the scientific and ethical requirements. Prior to peer review the Internal Handling Editor performs a plagiarism check for each submitted monograph. All scientific works are subject to peer review by minimum two peers in the same field prior to publishing. External experts who agree to evaluate the submitted manuscript, independently on a voluntary basis are chosen as the referees.

Edited Volumes

Book chapter manuscripts are published as a part of Edited Volumes. In the case of Edited Volumes Academic Editors are responsible for the final selection of all the chapters. The leading international subject experts are selected to act as Academic Editors. Academic Editors decide the suitability of all chapters based on the peer review outcome (explained below). A full chapter consists of a manuscript title, Author name(s) and affiliation(s), abstract, keywords, introduction, main body with headings and subheadings, acknowledgements (if any), ethical issues (if any), competing interests (if any), appendices (if any) and references. The chapters, which are incomplete, out of scope of the book and not scientifically sound, are rejected immediately.

(If any External Editor contributes a chapter, the Second External Editor performs the peer review process for this chapter to avoid any conflict of interest. The submitted manuscripts of the Academic editors are reviewed blindly by external peer reviewers.)

Peer Review Process:

The Academic Editor(s) reviews all submitted monographs and book chapters on the grounds of plagiarism, and the scientific value, to decide whether they are suitable for the book. After this Initial Editorial Screening the manuscripts are subject to external blind review.

Reviewer selection is a critical parameter to maintain the high peer review standard. Proof of expertise in terms of published papers in the same area in reputed journals, affiliation, and reputation, specific suggestion, etc. are the main factors, which are considered during peer reviewer selection. Reviewers who are slow, careless or do not provide sufficient justification for their decision (positive or negative) are not selected. Reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest are not considered.

In order to maintain MB International Scholar Press’s mission of fast publication, the revised manuscript submission should not go beyond eight weeks (only for the cases of major revision). Authors are encouraged to submit the revised version within 15-21 days of receipt of reviewers’ comments (in case of minor corrections). Authors need to submit filled ‘review comment forms’, any rebuttal to any point raised by reviewers, along with the corrected manuscript. The Academic Editor will have the exclusive power to take the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

The Academic Editor takes the FINAL decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) after careful judgment of the reviewers’ comments. The Editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer’s response in order to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the FINAL decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service was not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a FINAL decision.

All manuscripts are checked by plagiarism checking software and tools and plagiarized manuscripts are rejected immediately. MB International Scholar Press strongly opposes the practice of any type of plagiarism. If reviewers suspect any unethical practice in the manuscript, the reviewers should write it in the report with some proof/web links.

MB International Scholar Press believes in constructive criticism. Comments of the reviewers should be sufficiently informative and helpful to reach an Editorial Decision. Reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language. Harsh words may be modified or removed at the editors’ discretion. It is expected that the reviewers should suggest to the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable. We strongly advise that a negative review should also explain the weaknesses of any manuscript, so that the concerned author can understand the basis of rejection and improve the manuscript based on those comments.

Authors also should not confuse straightforward and true comments with unfair criticism. Substantially Extended version of previously published articles in conference or similar scholarly communications or digital archives or prepublication repositories may be considered by the reviewers and editors. In such cases a clear disclaimer is added inside the chapter with complete transparent disclosure about the genesis of the manuscript. Additionally all required permissions are collected by the authors.

MB International Scholar Press is very much reluctant to go against suggestions (particularly on technical areas) of the reviewers. Authors are requested to treat the comments of the reviewers with utmost importance.


Authors are given the opportunity for a formal appeal for the Rejected Works. If an author remains unsatisfied, he or she can write to the Editorial Office, citing the manuscript reference number. Appeal requests should be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be addressed to with the word “Appeal” in the subject line. Authors should provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ and/or Academic Editor’s comments.

In all these cases, it is likely that some time will elapse before MB International Scholar Press can respond, and the manuscript must not be submitted for publication elsewhere during this time. Authors should also be aware that priority is given to new submissions and so the processing of the appeal may take longer than the processing of the original submission. If an appeal is rejected, further appeals of the decision will not be considered and the manuscript may not be considered for resubmission.

All reviewers and academic editors are strongly encouraged to consult the below mentioned resources:

  1. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer reviewers (
  2. Publons Peer Reviewer Academy (