Objective of the Journal

The Sky Journals is published by Publication Committee. The mission of the Sky Journals is to significantly broaden the knowledge base of its readers and to do so the journal must concentrate on only those papers that fall within its purview.

The Editorial Board

The Sky Journals is headed by an Editor, Associate Editors and an Editorial Board. The Editors are appointed by the Publication Committee of Sky Journals, and Editorial Board members are appointed by Editor in consultation with the Publications Committee. The Editors serve a 3-year term and the Editorial Board members also serve a 3-year term. Board members are chosen based on the journal’s need for representation from a particular scientific area in conjunction with the individual’s commitment to maintaining high journal standards as illustrated in objective and prompt reviews.

An Editorial Office Team is also appointed by the publication committee to directly assist the editor.

The Review Process

All manuscripts must be submitted using the format outlined in the Instructions to Authors. The instructions are available on-line here

The Sky Journal’s editorial office policy requires each manuscript be reviewed by individuals who are highly competent and recognized in the particular field of the submitted manuscript. The editorial office contacts those reviewers that have been recommended by the Editor and/or the authors. Authors are encouraged to submit in their cover letters names of individuals whom they feel are appropriate and qualified to review their manuscript. Once potential reviewers agree to read a manuscript they are given a two-week deadline to complete the review.

When the reviews are completed, a decision is made to either accept the paper or give the authors the opportunity to revise according to reviewers’ suggestions or to reject the paper based on the reviewers’ criticisms and the Editor’s opinion of the paper. In some instances it is necessary to seek the opinion of other reviewers if further comment is necessary to make a final decision. When the editor has completed his decision on a manuscript, the decision letter and reviewers’ comments are sent to the author. Any questions or concerns regarding the editorial decision on any manuscript must be made directly to the Sky Journals editorial office. Revised manuscripts are evaluated to determine if the authors have adequately addressed and answered the critiques of the reviewers and editor. Depending upon this evaluation, manuscripts may either be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected. If a paper is accepted, the paper is immediately sent to the publication office and slotted for the next available issue. The Sky Journals tries to complete the review cycle in three weeks. This time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision work that needs to be completed before the manuscript is acceptable.

Grounds for Declining a Manuscript

The Sky Journals will decline a manuscript after it has completed the review process. Manuscripts that do not meet the standards of the journal are returned to authors with substantial comments describing the basis for the decision. Manuscripts may be rejected if it is felt that the findings are not sufficiently novel, do not provide sufficient new insights, do not contain enough new information, or are too preliminary to warrant publication.

Guidelines

A. Obligations of Editors

  1. Editors should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
  2. Editors should process manuscripts promptly.
  3. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it. The editor may confer with reviewers for an evaluation to use in making this decision.
  4. Editors and the editorial staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers.
  5. The editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
  6. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by the editor and submitted to the journal should be delegated to some other qualified person. The editor should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. If the editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific debate within his journal, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility.
  7. Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.
  8. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's own research except with the consent of the author.
  9. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.

B. Obligations of Authors

  1. An author's central obligation is to present a concise, accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
  2. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to public sources of information to permit the author's peers to repeat the work.
  3. An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, cannot be used without permission of the author of the work being used.
  4. Fragmentation of research papers should be avoided. A scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each paper gives a complete account of a particular aspect of the general study.
  5. It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical and unacceptable.
  6. An author should make no changes to a paper after it has been accepted. If there is a compelling reason to make changes, the author is obligated to inform the editor directly of the nature of the desired change. Only the editor has the final authority to approve any such requested changes.
  7. A criticism of a published paper may be justified; however, in no case is personal criticism considered acceptable.
  8. Only persons who have significantly contributed to the research should be listed as authors. The corresponding author attests that any others named as authors have seen the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Deceased persons who meet the criterion for co- authorship should be included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as authors or co-authors. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate.

C. Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

  1. In as much as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
  2. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.
  3. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.
  4. A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
  5. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
  6. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
  7. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  8. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
  9. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author
  10. Reviewers should respond promptly, usually within seven (10) days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, they contact the editor promptly so that authors can be kept informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers