Journal of Mountain Research

Society for Himalayan Action Research and Development (SHARAD) is a registered society (Registration No. 762/2006-2007 dated 17.11.2005) which publishes a peer-reviewed research journal named Journal of Mountain Research (P-ISSN: 0974-3030, E-ISSN: 2582-5011) since 2006, and applies a rigorous peer review policy.

Procedure

The journal operates a double-blind peer-review procedure. Authors should anonymize elements within the manuscript that could reveal their identities, such as authors' names, institutional affiliations, contact information, and references to their own work.

• Upon receipt of a manuscript, it undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to evaluate its suitability for publication as per the Journal Guidelines.
• If necessary, it is also forwarded to a subject-specific referee or reviewer for expert review.
• If found appropriate, the manuscript is typically sent to at least two independent reviewers for expert evaluation of its scientific quality.
• The author is informed of the comments provided by the editor or referee and is requested to revise the manuscript accordingly.
• After receiving a satisfactory revision, the manuscript is further reviewed by the Chief Editor for the final decision regarding acceptance.
• The identities of reviewers/referees are kept confidential and are not disclosed to the authors.
• The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the Chief editors.

Peer review provides a critical assessment to maintain high academic standards. Review reports should provide constructive feedback, including strengths, weaknesses, recommendations on methodology, findings, discussion, references, language, and presentation. Reviewers should also advise editors on acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.

The review process is expected to be completed within 3–6 months. Longer times may occur depending on reviewer feedback, author revisions, and the number of revisions.

Competing Interests

If reviewers realize a competing interest that might influence the review report, they should immediately alert the editors and refrain from continuing the review. Competing interests occur when a professional decision might be affected by another interest, such as a monetary connection, an intellectual trust, or an individual relationship or competition. To maintain high levels of objectivity and credibility, reviewers are expected to disclose any possible competing interests.

Confidentiality

Submission content, including abstract, ideas, and research data, should be treated as privileged information by reviewers and editors, and should not be shared with any third parties or used personally. Authors and reviewers should take care to maintain anonymity as part of the double-blind peer-review process.

Timeliness

Reviewers are requested to deliver review reports on time to ensure a smooth publication process. If reviewers are unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial office and request an extension promptly.