Editing Fdfg

<!-- BJS_ARTICLE_METADATA_START
sourceArticleId=14
title=fdfg
category=Vedic Philosophical and Cognitive Science
author=Neeraja
language=Hindi
languageCode=hi
originalLanguage=
articleType=Original Beginner
difficultyLevel=Beginner
createdAt=2026-09-17 16:07:57
updatedAt=2026-09-17T10:41:01Z
clickCount=
fileType=docx
fileId=717
mimeType=application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
sourceCollection=submissions
BJS_ARTICLE_METADATA_END -->

__NOEDITSECTION__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:fdfg}}
{| class="infobox" style="float:right; clear:right; width:300px; max-width:300px; margin:0 0 1em 1em; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; background:#f8f9fa; font-size:90%; table-layout:fixed;"
|-
! style="text-align:left; width:35%;" | Title
| fdfg
|-
! style="text-align:left;" | Author(s)
| Neeraja
|-
! style="text-align:left;" | Platform
| Bharatiya Jnana Sarita
|-
! style="text-align:left;" | Categories
| Vedic Philosophical and Cognitive Science
|-
! style="text-align:left;" | Year
| 2026
|-
! style="text-align:left;" | Type of Article
| Original Beginner
|-
! style="text-align:left;" | Difficulty Level
| Beginner
|}

{| id="pravaha-abstract" role="region" aria-label="Summary" class="bjs-abstract-panel" style="float:right; clear:right; width:300px; max-width:300px; box-sizing:border-box; margin:0 0 1em 1em; border:1px solid #d6a9bc; border-collapse:separate; border-spacing:0; background:#fff7fa; color:#202122;"
|-
! class="bjs-abstract-heading" style="padding:8px 12px; background:#efcddd; color:#202122; text-align:left; font-size:1.15em; font-weight:700;" | Summary
|- class="bjs-abstract-content-row"
| style="padding:14px 16px; background:#fff7fa; text-align:left; line-height:1.65; overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | <div class="bjs-abstract-static">dd</div>
|}

'''PRAVĀHA'''

'''REVIEWER HANDBOOK'''

Bhāratīya Jñāna Saritā (BJS)

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''A practical guide for accepting review assignments, assessing manuscripts and supplementary material, recording constructive feedback, recommending decisions, and completing re-review in Pravāha.'''
|}

''Prepared for the customized Pravāha reviewer workflow''

<span id="purpose-of-this-handbook"></span>

= 1. Purpose of this Handbook =

This handbook explains the day-to-day workflow for Reviewers using the customized Pravāha interface. It is designed to help a reviewer move from receiving an assignment through manuscript assessment, recommendation, submission of the review, and any subsequent re-review.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Reviewer Tip:''' The reviewer dashboard is your starting point. Use Action Required by me for pending work and All assignments to see both current and completed assignments.
|}

<span id="about-bjs-and-pravāha"></span>

= 2. About BJS and Pravāha =

<span id="about-bhāratīya-jñāna-saritā-bjs"></span>

== 2.1 About Bhāratīya Jñāna Saritā (BJS) ==


Bhāratīya Jñāna Saritā (BJS) is a digital repository being developed to bring together, organise and provide wider access to knowledge resources related to Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS). It supports scholarly engagement and wider public access through systematic curation, organisation and dissemination.

<span id="about-pravāha"></span>

== 2.2 About Pravāha ==


Pravāha is the editorial workflow management platform supporting content management and publication on BJS. It provides role-based assignment, workflow and status tracking, expert review, revision and approval, while maintaining version history and records.

<span id="reviewer-workflow-at-a-glance"></span>

= 3. Reviewer Workflow at a Glance =

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Review Request'''
! '''Accept / Decline'''
! '''Download &amp; Review'''
! '''Recommendation'''
! '''Submit / Re-review'''
|}

Within a review assignment, Pravāha presents four workflow steps: 1. Request → 2. Guidelines → 3. Download &amp; Review → 4. Completion. For revised submissions, the reviewer may also refer to previous review rounds before submitting the next assessment.

<span id="understanding-the-reviewer-dashboard"></span>

= 4. Understanding the Reviewer Dashboard =

[[File:BJS_14_image1.png|657x353px]]

''Figure 1. Reviewer dashboard — All assignments view''

The dashboard groups assignments by status and highlights work that requires reviewer action. The Editorial Activity column shows whether a review has been submitted or the date by which it should be completed.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Dashboard option'''
! '''Purpose'''
|-
| Action Required by me
| Assignments that still require a response, review, or completion action.
|-
| All assignments
| All review assignments visible to the logged-in reviewer.
|-
| Completed
| Reviews that have been submitted.
|-
| Declined
| Review requests that the reviewer declined.
|-
| Published
| Reviewed submissions that have subsequently been published.
|-
| Archived
| Assignments no longer active in the current workflow.
|}

<span id="step-1-request-for-review"></span>

= 5. Step 1 — Request for Review =

Open the assignment and review the request details before accepting. Accept the review only when the content falls within your area of expertise, you can complete it within the specified timeline, and no conflict of interest could affect your assessment.

<ul>

<li><blockquote><p>If you can undertake the review, accept the request and proceed to the guidelines and manuscript files.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>If you cannot undertake the review, decline the request at the earliest opportunity.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Treat the manuscript and all supplementary materials as confidential from the moment the request is received.</p></blockquote></li></ul>

<span id="step-2-reviewer-guidelines"></span>

= 6. Step 2 — Reviewer Guidelines =

[[File:BJS_14_image2.png|657x339px]]

''Figure 2. Reviewer workflow — Step 2: Guidelines''

Before beginning the assessment, read the Reviewer Guidelines and familiarise yourself with the review criteria and expected format of feedback. Use Continue to Step #3 to access the manuscript and supporting files.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Reviewer Tip:''' If the Guidelines page states that no reviewer guidelines have been set, follow this handbook and any review instructions communicated for the assignment.
|}

<span id="step-3-download-review"></span>

= 7. Step 3 — Download &amp; Review =

[[File:BJS_14_image3.png|657x337px]]

''Figure 3. Download &amp; Review — manuscript and supplementary files''

Review the manuscript together with relevant supporting materials. Pravāha may provide the converted article file, the original manuscript, and supplementary material such as images, audio, or video.

<ul>

<li><blockquote><p>Wiki/converted article file: open the article text under Review Files to check the converted version and content presentation.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Download .docx: use this when you need to examine the original manuscript in greater detail or make annotations.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Supplementary material: review relevant images, videos, audio, or other files for relevance, accuracy, quality, and alignment with the article.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Review Form: complete all applicable fields and provide specific comments wherever clarification, correction, or revision is required.</p></blockquote></li></ul>

<span id="writing-the-review"></span>

= 8. Writing the Review =

<span id="recommended-approach"></span>

== 8.1 Recommended Approach ==


<ul>

<li><blockquote><p>Begin with a brief overall assessment of the submission.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Identify key strengths as well as concerns.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Distinguish major concerns from minor corrections.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Explain the basis for important criticisms and provide specific, actionable suggestions.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Refer clearly to the relevant section, paragraph, claim, source, or aspect of the content where possible.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Maintain a professional, respectful, and constructive tone.</p></blockquote></li></ul>

<span id="avoid"></span>

== 8.2 Avoid ==


<ul>

<li><blockquote><p>Comments directed at the author personally.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Vague statements such as “this is not good” without explanation.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Criticism based solely on personal preference.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Requests for changes unrelated to the quality, accuracy, relevance, or clarity of the content.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Extensive formatting corrections that can appropriately be handled during copyediting.</p></blockquote></li></ul>

<span id="review-of-supplementary-material"></span>

== 8.3 Review of Supplementary Material ==


Where images, videos, or other supplementary materials are included, assess them where relevant to the content. Consider relevance, accuracy, contextual appropriateness, quality, and alignment with the accompanying text.

<span id="selecting-a-recommendation"></span>

= 9. Selecting a Recommendation =

[[File:BJS_14_image4.png|657x340px]]

''Figure 4. Recommendation and review submission controls''

After recording the review, select the recommendation that best matches your assessment. The recommendation should be consistent with the substantive issues described in your comments.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Recommendation'''
! '''Meaning'''
|-
| Accept
| The content meets the expected standards and requires no substantive revision before publication.
|-
| Minor Revision
| The content is broadly suitable but requires limited corrections, clarifications, or additions.
|-
| Major Revision
| The content has potential for publication but requires substantial revision relating to accuracy, structure, sources, interpretation, or completeness.
|-
| Reject
| The content does not currently meet the requirements for publication on BJS and the concerns cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Reviewer Tip:''' Pravāha requires the applicable review fields to be completed before the review can be submitted. Use Save for Later if you need to return to the review before final submission.
|}

<span id="uploading-reviewer-files"></span>

= 10. Uploading Reviewer Files =

When a major or minor revision requires detailed annotation, use Download .docx to mark specific corrections or areas requiring attention. Upload the annotated manuscript under Reviewer Files using the available file-upload control.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Reviewer Tip:''' Reviewer annotations should support and clarify the comments entered in the Review Form; they should not replace the overall assessment and recommendation.
|}

<span id="step-4-completion"></span>

= 11. Step 4 — Completion =

Before selecting Submit Review, confirm that all required fields are complete, your comments are clear and constructive, any necessary reviewer files are uploaded, and the recommendation is consistent with the review.

'''1.''' Review the entered comments one final time.

'''2.''' Select the appropriate recommendation.

'''3.''' Upload any reviewer file that the editor and/or author should consult.

'''4.''' Select Submit Review to complete the review.

'''5.''' After submission, confirm that the assignment appears as completed or shows the review-submitted status.

<span id="review-of-a-revised-submission"></span>

= 12. Review of a Revised Submission =

For major and minor revisions, the workflow may include more than one review round. A second review may not be necessary where the editorial team can adequately assess the revisions; substantial changes may be returned for re-review at the Editor’s discretion.

When a revised manuscript is returned for re-review:

'''1.''' Use Read Round Review under Previous Reviews to refer to your earlier assessment.

'''2.''' Compare the revised manuscript with the concerns raised previously.

'''3.''' Assess whether the substantive concerns have been adequately addressed.

'''4.''' Identify any issues that remain unresolved.

'''5.''' Avoid introducing new substantive requirements unless they arise directly from the revision or reveal an important issue affecting the content.

'''6.''' Provide a clear recommendation based on the revised submission.

Review &amp; Re-review workflow: Reviewer submits comments &amp; recommendation → Editor reviews → Author revises &amp; resubmits → Editor reviews revised submission → Reviewer is reassigned if re-review is required → Reviewer submits final recommendation.

<span id="guidelines-for-reviewing-bjs-content"></span>

= 13. Guidelines for Reviewing BJS Content =

The review should assess relevance, accuracy, scholarly quality, and suitability for inclusion in BJS. Consider both the strengths of the submission and substantive issues that should be addressed before publication.

<span id="relevance-and-scope"></span>

== 13.1 Relevance and Scope ==


<ul>

<li><blockquote><p>Relevance to Indian Knowledge Systems and the stated thematic/domain area.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>A clearly identifiable topic, tradition, concept, practice, text, or knowledge resource.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Suitability for inclusion in BJS and consistency with its intended scope and audience.</p></blockquote></li></ul>

<span id="accuracy-and-authenticity"></span>

== 13.2 Accuracy and Authenticity ==


<ul>

<li><blockquote><p>Factual statements and interpretations are accurate to the extent reasonably established.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Important claims are supported by appropriate sources or references.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Primary or authoritative sources are used where appropriate.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Translations, quotations, terminology, and attributions are accurate.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Established knowledge, interpretation, commentary, and contemporary application are appropriately distinguished.</p></blockquote></li></ul>

<span id="scholarly-and-intellectual-quality"></span>

== 13.3 Scholarly and Intellectual Quality ==


<ul>

<li><blockquote><p>Adequate understanding of the subject and appropriate context.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Appropriate engagement with relevant literature or source material.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Unsupported generalisations or claims are avoided.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Sufficient depth for the intended purpose of the article.</p></blockquote></li></ul>

<span id="structure-clarity-and-coherence"></span>

== 13.4 Structure, Clarity and Coherence ==


<ul>

<li><blockquote><p>The title accurately represents the content.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>The article has a logical structure and key concepts are adequately explained.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Terminology is used consistently and the content is understandable to its intended audience.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>The conclusion or summary appropriately reflects the material presented.</p></blockquote></li></ul>

<span id="references-attribution-and-sources"></span>

== 13.5 References, Attribution and Sources ==


<ul>

<li><blockquote><p>Important sources are appropriately cited.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Quotations and borrowed material are properly attributed.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>References are relevant and reasonably adequate.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>Claims requiring evidence are supported.</p></blockquote></li>

<li><blockquote><p>The treatment of primary sources, translations, and secondary scholarship is transparent.</p></blockquote></li></ul>

Where concerns regarding plagiarism, misattribution, or other ethical issues arise, flag them to the Editor.

<span id="confidentiality-and-ethical-conduct"></span>

= 14. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct =

The manuscript and supplementary materials must be treated as confidential and should not be shared or used for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest and provide an independent and impartial assessment.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Important:''' The reviewer provides an independent scholarly assessment. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the submission rests with the Editor.
|}

<span id="reviewer-checklist"></span>

= 15. Reviewer Checklist =

☐ Assignment accepted only after checking expertise, availability, and conflict of interest

☐ Manuscript and supplementary files reviewed

☐ Review comments are specific, clear, and constructive

☐ Major and minor issues are distinguished

☐ Sources, attribution, accuracy, and authenticity considered

☐ Required Review Form fields completed

☐ Reviewer file uploaded where needed

☐ Recommendation selected and consistent with comments

☐ Previous review consulted during re-review, where applicable

☐ Final review submitted successfully

<span id="quick-workflow-reference"></span>

= 16. Quick Workflow Reference =

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Request'''
! '''Accept'''
! '''Guidelines'''
! '''Review'''
! '''Recommend'''
! '''Submit'''
|}

For a revised submission: Previous Review → Revised Manuscript → Re-assessment → Remaining Issues → Updated Recommendation → Submit Review.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Version note:''' This handbook reflects the customized Pravāha reviewer workflow shown in the supplied screenshots and the current reviewer guidance. Interface labels may change slightly as the platform is refined.
|}