All the submitted research manuscripts are read by the editorial staff, and only those manuscripts, which fulfill our editorial criteria are sent for formal review to save the time of authors and peer-reviewers. Those research manuscripts scientifically inadequate, inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review.
Selected research manuscripts are sent ideally for two reviewers; however, sometimes it may send to statistics or particular technique personnel for special advice is needed. The editors then take a final decision based on the following reviewers' advice:

• Accept, with or without editorial revisions
• Request the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
• Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
  
• Reject, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

Reviewers can recommend above mentioned action, however, they should keep in mind that the other reviewers of a particular manuscript may have dissimilar technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on contradictory suggestions. The accurate reviewers’ reports, gives the idea to editors for selection or rejection of the research manuscript.

Editorial try to assess the strength of the advice suggested by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our main focus is to our readers and to the scientific community, and in deciding how best to serve them.

We may go back to reviewers for the additional suggestion, mainly in cases where they differ with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. Therefore, we ask that reviewers supposed to be enthusiastic to give follow-up guidance as requested. We know that the reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes; therefore, we try our level best to keep the discussion to the minimum we judge essential to give a fair hearing for the authors.