Fdfg: Difference between revisions

From enIKSwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
(BJS: convert (MAIN))
 
(BJS: publish final from Draft)
Tag: Manual revert
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
articleType=Original Beginner
articleType=Original Beginner
difficultyLevel=Beginner
difficultyLevel=Beginner
createdAt=2026-09-17 12:59:44
createdAt=2026-09-17 16:07:57
updatedAt=2026-09-17T10:37:05Z
updatedAt=2026-09-17T10:41:01Z
clickCount=
clickCount=
fileType=docx
fileType=docx
fileId=716
fileId=717
mimeType=application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
mimeType=application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
sourceCollection=submissions
sourceCollection=submissions
Line 53: Line 53:
'''PRAVĀHA'''
'''PRAVĀHA'''


'''EDITOR HANDBOOK'''
'''REVIEWER HANDBOOK'''


Bhāratīya Jñāna Saritā (BJS)
Bhāratīya Jñāna Saritā (BJS)
Line 59: Line 59:
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
! '''A practical guide for managing submissions, peer review,<br />
! '''A practical guide for accepting review assignments, assessing manuscripts and supplementary material, recording constructive feedback, recommending decisions, and completing re-review in Pravāha.'''
editorial decisions, copyediting, production, and publication.'''
|}
|}


''Prepared for the customized Pravāha editorial workflow''
''Prepared for the customized Pravāha reviewer workflow''


<span id="purpose-of-this-handbook"></span>
<span id="purpose-of-this-handbook"></span>
Line 69: Line 68:
= 1. Purpose of this Handbook =
= 1. Purpose of this Handbook =


This handbook explains the day-to-day workflow for Editors using the Pravāha editorial dashboard. It is designed around the current customized interface and helps an Editor move a manuscript from initial submission through peer review, revision, copyediting, production, and publication.
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"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
! '''Editor Tip:''' The counts shown beside dashboard categories are live workflow indicators. They change as submissions move between stages.
! '''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="editorial-workflow-at-a-glance"></span>
<span id="about-bjs-and-pravāha"></span>


= 2. Editorial Workflow at a Glance =
= 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"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
! '''Submission'''
! '''Review Request'''
! '''Editor Assignment'''
! '''Accept / Decline'''
! '''Peer Review'''
! '''Download &amp; Review'''
! '''Decision / Revision'''
! '''Recommendation'''
! '''Copyediting'''
! '''Submit / Re-review'''
! '''Production &amp; Publish'''
|}
|}


The Editor is responsible for checking incoming submissions, ensuring an Editor is assigned, selecting suitable reviewers, monitoring review progress, recording the editorial decision, handling revised files, and moving accepted manuscripts through copyediting and production.
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-editor-dashboard"></span>
<span id="understanding-the-reviewer-dashboard"></span>


= 3. Understanding the Editor Dashboard =
= 4. Understanding the Reviewer Dashboard =


[[File:BJS_14_image1.png|672x349px]]
[[File:BJS_14_image1.png|657x353px]]


''Figure 1. Pravāha Editor Dashboard — Assigned to me view''
''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"
{| class="wikitable"
Line 105: Line 123:
! '''Purpose'''
! '''Purpose'''
|-
|-
| '''Assigned to me'''
| Action Required by me
| Submissions for which the logged-in Editor has direct editorial responsibility.
| Assignments that still require a response, review, or completion action.
|-
|-
| '''Active submissions'''
| All assignments
| All currently active manuscripts across the editorial workflow.
| All review assignments visible to the logged-in reviewer.
|-
|-
| '''Needs editor'''
| Completed
| New or unassigned submissions that require an Editor assignment.
| Reviews that have been submitted.
|-
|-
| '''All in submission stage'''
| Declined
| Submissions still in the initial submission stage.
| Review requests that the reviewer declined.
|-
|-
| '''Needs reviews'''
| Published
| Manuscripts that require reviewer assignment or additional review action.
| Reviewed submissions that have subsequently been published.
|-
|-
| '''Awaiting reviews'''
| Archived
| Review requests are active and reviewer responses/reports are pending.
| Assignments no longer active in the current workflow.
|-
| '''Reviews submitted'''
| At least one review has been completed and is ready for editorial consideration.
|-
| '''Reviews overdue'''
| Review assignments that have passed the expected completion date.
|-
| '''Author revisions submitted'''
| Revised files have been returned by the author and need editorial action.
|-
| '''All in review stage'''
| All manuscripts currently undergoing peer review.
|-
| '''All in copyediting stage'''
| Accepted manuscripts currently in copyediting.
|-
| '''All in production stage'''
| Manuscripts being prepared for final publication.
|-
| '''Scheduled for publication'''
| Articles scheduled but not yet published.
|-
| '''Published'''
| Published articles.
|-
| '''Declined'''
| Submissions that have been declined.
|}
|}


<span id="working-with-active-submissions"></span>
<span id="step-1-request-for-review"></span>


= 4. Working with Active Submissions =
= 5. Step 1 — Request for Review =


[[File:BJS_14_image2.png|672x361px]]
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.


''Figure 2. Active submissions list''
<ul>


The Active submissions screen gives the Editor a consolidated view of manuscripts currently being processed. Each row shows the submission ID, manuscript/author information, current stage, number of days in workflow, editorial activity, and an action button.
<li><blockquote><p>If you can undertake the review, accept the request and proceed to the guidelines and manuscript files.</p></blockquote></li>


'''1.''' Open Active submissions from the left navigation panel.
<li><blockquote><p>If you cannot undertake the review, decline the request at the earliest opportunity.</p></blockquote></li>


'''2.''' Locate the manuscript by title, author, submission ID, or the search field.
<li><blockquote><p>Treat the manuscript and all supplementary materials as confidential from the moment the request is received.</p></blockquote></li></ul>


'''3.''' Check the Stage column to identify whether the manuscript is in Review, Copyediting, or another stage.
<span id="step-2-reviewer-guidelines"></span>


'''4.''' Review the Editorial Activity indicator for pending actions or recent workflow activity.
= 6. Step 2 — Reviewer Guidelines =


'''5.''' Click View to open the manuscript workspace.
[[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"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
! '''Editor Tip:''' Use the dashboard categories such as Needs reviews, Reviews submitted, and Author revisions submitted when you want to focus only on manuscripts requiring a specific action.
! '''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="opening-a-submission-workspace"></span>
<span id="step-3-download-review"></span>


= 5. Opening a Submission Workspace =
= 7. Step 3 — Download &amp; Review =


[[File:BJS_14_image3.png|672x345px]]
[[File:BJS_14_image3.png|657x337px]]


''Figure 3. Submission workspace — Review Round 2''
''Figure 3. Download &amp; Review — manuscript and supplementary files''


Inside a submission, the left Workflow panel provides access to the manuscript's stages. Review rounds appear separately, allowing the Editor to retain the history of earlier rounds while working on the current round.
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.


'''1.''' Confirm the submission ID, author, manuscript title, and current stage shown at the top.
<ul>


'''2.''' Use Submission to inspect the original submission and files.
<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>


'''3.''' Use Review Round 1, Review Round 2, etc. to inspect reviewer assignments, responses, files, and decisions for each round.
<li><blockquote><p>Download .docx: use this when you need to examine the original manuscript in greater detail or make annotations.</p></blockquote></li>


'''4.''' Use Copyediting after the manuscript has been accepted and moved forward.
<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>


'''5.''' Use Production when the final article is ready for publication preparation.
<li><blockquote><p>Review Form: complete all applicable fields and provide specific comments wherever clarification, correction, or revision is required.</p></blockquote></li></ul>


'''6.''' Use the Publication section to verify Title &amp; Abstract, List of Contributors, Metadata, and Issue information before publication.
<span id="writing-the-review"></span>


{| class="wikitable"
= 8. Writing the Review =
|-
 
! '''Editor Tip:''' The Activity Log can be used to review the history of editorial actions and workflow events for the submission.
<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>


<span id="managing-peer-review"></span>
<li><blockquote><p>Distinguish major concerns from minor corrections.</p></blockquote></li>


= 6. Managing Peer Review =
<li><blockquote><p>Explain the basis for important criticisms and provide specific, actionable suggestions.</p></blockquote></li>


<span id="assigning-reviewers"></span>
<li><blockquote><p>Refer clearly to the relevant section, paragraph, claim, source, or aspect of the content where possible.</p></blockquote></li>


== 6.1 Assigning Reviewers ==
<li><blockquote><p>Maintain a professional, respectful, and constructive tone.</p></blockquote></li></ul>


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


When a manuscript requires review, open the current Review Round and use the reviewer assignment controls. Select reviewers whose expertise, language, and area of interest are appropriate for the manuscript, and check for conflicts of interest before sending the request.
== 8.2 Avoid ==


'''1.''' Open the manuscript and select the active Review Round.


'''2.''' Use the reviewer assignment option to add a suitable reviewer.
<ul>


'''3.''' Verify the reviewer profile and suitability for the manuscript.
<li><blockquote><p>Comments directed at the author personally.</p></blockquote></li>


'''4.''' Set or confirm the review deadline and send the review request.
<li><blockquote><p>Vague statements such as “this is not good” without explanation.</p></blockquote></li>


'''5.''' Return to the dashboard to monitor the manuscript under Awaiting reviews.
<li><blockquote><p>Criticism based solely on personal preference.</p></blockquote></li>


<span id="monitoring-reviewer-assignments"></span>
<li><blockquote><p>Requests for changes unrelated to the quality, accuracy, relevance, or clarity of the content.</p></blockquote></li>


== 6.2 Monitoring Reviewer Assignments ==
<li><blockquote><p>Extensive formatting corrections that can appropriately be handled during copyediting.</p></blockquote></li></ul>


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


[[File:BJS_14_image4.png|672x346px]]
== 8.3 Review of Supplementary Material ==


''Figure 4. Reviewer assignment view — shown here to illustrate the status visible to a reviewer''


Review status should be monitored until the required reports are received. A review may be awaiting action, completed, declined, or overdue. Once a review is submitted, the manuscript becomes available for editorial assessment.
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.


{| class="wikitable"
<span id="selecting-a-recommendation"></span>
|-
! '''Editor Tip:''' The screenshot above is the reviewer-facing assignment view. Editors should use their editorial dashboard categories—especially Awaiting reviews, Reviews submitted, and Reviews overdue—to monitor the same review lifecycle.
|}


<span id="editorial-decision"></span>
= 9. Selecting a Recommendation =


== 6.3 Editorial Decision ==
[[File:BJS_14_image4.png|657x340px]]


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


After considering the reviewer reports and the manuscript, use the decision controls available in the active review round.
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"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
! '''Decision'''
! '''Recommendation'''
! '''When to use it'''
! '''Meaning'''
|-
| Accept
| The content meets the expected standards and requires no substantive revision before publication.
|-
|-
| '''Request Revisions'''
| Minor Revision
| The manuscript can proceed after the author addresses required changes.
| The content is broadly suitable but requires limited corrections, clarifications, or additions.
|-
|-
| '''Accept Submission'''
| Major Revision
| The manuscript is suitable for acceptance and can move to copyediting.
| 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"
|-
|-
| '''Create New Review Round'''
! '''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.
| A revised manuscript requires another formal round of peer review.
|}
 
<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"
|-
|-
| '''Decline Submission'''
! '''Reviewer Tip:''' Reviewer annotations should support and clarify the comments entered in the Review Form; they should not replace the overall assessment and recommendation.
| The manuscript should not proceed further in the journal workflow.
|}
|}


<span id="handling-author-revisions"></span>
<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.


= 7. Handling Author Revisions =
When a revised manuscript is returned for re-review:


When revisions are requested, the author uploads a revised manuscript and any supporting files. The Editor should compare the revision with the previous review comments and decide whether the changes can be assessed editorially or require re-review.
'''1.''' Use Read Round Review under Previous Reviews to refer to your earlier assessment.


'''1.''' Open Author revisions submitted or the relevant manuscript from Active submissions.
'''2.''' Compare the revised manuscript with the concerns raised previously.


'''2.''' Open the current Review Round and inspect the Revisions Uploaded section.
'''3.''' Assess whether the substantive concerns have been adequately addressed.


'''3.''' Download and review the revised manuscript and any response/correction file provided by the author.
'''4.''' Identify any issues that remain unresolved.


'''4.''' If the revisions are satisfactory and no further peer review is required, proceed with the appropriate editorial decision.
'''5.''' Avoid introducing new substantive requirements unless they arise directly from the revision or reveal an important issue affecting the content.


'''5.''' If substantive issues require reviewer reassessment, create a new review round and assign the reviewer(s).
'''6.''' Provide a clear recommendation based on the revised submission.


<span id="copyediting-stage"></span>
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.


= 8. Copyediting Stage =
<span id="guidelines-for-reviewing-bjs-content"></span>


After acceptance, move the manuscript to Copyediting. At this stage the text, metadata, formatting, and publication-ready content should be checked carefully.
= 13. Guidelines for Reviewing BJS Content =


'''1.''' Open All in copyediting stage and select the accepted manuscript.
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.


'''2.''' Check the copyediting files and ensure the correct manuscript version is being used.
<span id="relevance-and-scope"></span>


'''3.''' Verify title, author/contributor details, abstract, metadata, and article information.
== 13.1 Relevance and Scope ==


'''4.''' Complete the customized DOCX-to-Wiki conversion workflow where applicable.


'''5.''' Review the converted output and resolve formatting issues before completing copyediting.
<ul>


'''6.''' When copyediting is complete, move the manuscript to Production.
<li><blockquote><p>Relevance to Indian Knowledge Systems and the stated thematic/domain area.</p></blockquote></li>


{| class="wikitable"
<li><blockquote><p>A clearly identifiable topic, tradition, concept, practice, text, or knowledge resource.</p></blockquote></li>
|-
 
! '''Editor Tip:''' In the customized Pravāha workflow, conversion and stage-completion actions should only be used after the required manuscript file is available and the converted output has been checked.
<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>


<span id="production-and-publication"></span>
<li><blockquote><p>Terminology is used consistently and the content is understandable to its intended audience.</p></blockquote></li>


= 9. Production and Publication =
<li><blockquote><p>The conclusion or summary appropriately reflects the material presented.</p></blockquote></li></ul>


Production is the final quality-control stage before publication. The Editor should verify both the article content and publication metadata before releasing the article.
<span id="references-attribution-and-sources"></span>


'''1.''' Open the manuscript in Production.
== 13.5 References, Attribution and Sources ==


'''2.''' Verify the final article/Wiki output and confirm that no unresolved editorial corrections remain.


'''3.''' Review Title &amp; Abstract, List of Contributors, Metadata, and Issue information under Publication.
<ul>


'''4.''' Check that the final public-facing article is complete and correctly formatted.
<li><blockquote><p>Important sources are appropriately cited.</p></blockquote></li>


'''5.''' Schedule the article for publication where required, or publish it according to the journal's approved workflow.
<li><blockquote><p>Quotations and borrowed material are properly attributed.</p></blockquote></li>


'''6.''' After publication, confirm that the article appears under Published and opens correctly on the public journal site.
<li><blockquote><p>References are relevant and reasonably adequate.</p></blockquote></li>


<span id="recommended-editor-checklist"></span>
<li><blockquote><p>Claims requiring evidence are supported.</p></blockquote></li>


= 10. Recommended Editor Checklist =
<li><blockquote><p>The treatment of primary sources, translations, and secondary scholarship is transparent.</p></blockquote></li></ul>


'''☐''' Submission details and manuscript files checked
Where concerns regarding plagiarism, misattribution, or other ethical issues arise, flag them to the Editor.


'''☐''' Appropriate Editor/participants assigned
<span id="confidentiality-and-ethical-conduct"></span>


'''☐''' Reviewer expertise and conflicts checked
= 14. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct =


'''☐''' Review request and deadline verified
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.


'''☐''' Reviewer reports assessed
{| 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.
|}


'''☐''' Editorial decision communicated correctly
<span id="reviewer-checklist"></span>


'''☐''' Author revisions checked
= 15. Reviewer Checklist =


'''☐''' Additional review round created only when required
☐ Assignment accepted only after checking expertise, availability, and conflict of interest


'''☐''' Accepted manuscript moved to Copyediting
☐ Manuscript and supplementary files reviewed


'''☐''' Conversion/output checked during copyediting
☐ Review comments are specific, clear, and constructive


'''☐''' Final metadata and contributor details verified
☐ Major and minor issues are distinguished


'''☐''' Production output checked before publication
☐ Sources, attribution, accuracy, and authenticity considered


'''☐''' Published article verified on the public site
☐ Required Review Form fields completed


<span id="good-editorial-practice"></span>
☐ Reviewer file uploaded where needed


= 11. Good Editorial Practice =
☐ Recommendation selected and consistent with comments


Editors should maintain confidentiality throughout peer review, avoid conflicts of interest, keep communication professional and constructive, and make decisions based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, journal scope, and editorial standards. Reviewer identities and confidential comments should be handled according to the journal's peer-review policy.
☐ Previous review consulted during re-review, where applicable
 
☐ Final review submitted successfully


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


= 12. Quick Workflow Reference =
= 16. Quick Workflow Reference =
 
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Request'''
! '''Accept'''
! '''Guidelines'''
! '''Review'''
! '''Recommend'''
! '''Submit'''
|}


'''New Submission → Assign Editor → Assign Reviewer(s) → Review → Decision → Revision (if needed) → Accept → Copyediting → Production → Publish'''
For a revised submission: Previous Review → Revised Manuscript → Re-assessment → Remaining Issues → Updated Recommendation → Submit Review.


{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
! '''Version note:''' This handbook reflects the current Pravāha interface shown in the supplied screenshots. It can be expanded with additional screenshots for reviewer assignment, decision dialogs, copyediting conversion, production, and final publication screens.
! '''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.
|}
|}

Latest revision as of 16:11, 17 September 2026



Title fdfg
Author(s) Neeraja
Platform Bharatiya Jnana Sarita
Categories Vedic Philosophical and Cognitive Science
Year 2026
Type of Article Original Beginner
Difficulty Level Beginner
Summary
dd

PRAVĀHA

REVIEWER HANDBOOK

Bhāratīya Jñāna Saritā (BJS)

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

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.

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.

2. About BJS and Pravāha

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.

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.

3. Reviewer Workflow at a Glance

Review Request Accept / Decline Download & Review Recommendation Submit / Re-review

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

4. Understanding the Reviewer Dashboard

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.

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.

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.

  • If you can undertake the review, accept the request and proceed to the guidelines and manuscript files.

  • If you cannot undertake the review, decline the request at the earliest opportunity.

  • Treat the manuscript and all supplementary materials as confidential from the moment the request is received.

6. Step 2 — Reviewer Guidelines

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.

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.

7. Step 3 — Download & Review

Figure 3. Download & 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.

  • Wiki/converted article file: open the article text under Review Files to check the converted version and content presentation.

  • Download .docx: use this when you need to examine the original manuscript in greater detail or make annotations.

  • Supplementary material: review relevant images, videos, audio, or other files for relevance, accuracy, quality, and alignment with the article.

  • Review Form: complete all applicable fields and provide specific comments wherever clarification, correction, or revision is required.

8. Writing the Review

8.1 Recommended Approach

  • Begin with a brief overall assessment of the submission.

  • Identify key strengths as well as concerns.

  • Distinguish major concerns from minor corrections.

  • Explain the basis for important criticisms and provide specific, actionable suggestions.

  • Refer clearly to the relevant section, paragraph, claim, source, or aspect of the content where possible.

  • Maintain a professional, respectful, and constructive tone.

8.2 Avoid

  • Comments directed at the author personally.

  • Vague statements such as “this is not good” without explanation.

  • Criticism based solely on personal preference.

  • Requests for changes unrelated to the quality, accuracy, relevance, or clarity of the content.

  • Extensive formatting corrections that can appropriately be handled during copyediting.

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.

9. Selecting a Recommendation

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.

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.
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.

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.

Reviewer Tip: Reviewer annotations should support and clarify the comments entered in the Review Form; they should not replace the overall assessment and recommendation.

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.

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

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.

13.1 Relevance and Scope

  • Relevance to Indian Knowledge Systems and the stated thematic/domain area.

  • A clearly identifiable topic, tradition, concept, practice, text, or knowledge resource.

  • Suitability for inclusion in BJS and consistency with its intended scope and audience.

13.2 Accuracy and Authenticity

  • Factual statements and interpretations are accurate to the extent reasonably established.

  • Important claims are supported by appropriate sources or references.

  • Primary or authoritative sources are used where appropriate.

  • Translations, quotations, terminology, and attributions are accurate.

  • Established knowledge, interpretation, commentary, and contemporary application are appropriately distinguished.

13.3 Scholarly and Intellectual Quality

  • Adequate understanding of the subject and appropriate context.

  • Appropriate engagement with relevant literature or source material.

  • Unsupported generalisations or claims are avoided.

  • Sufficient depth for the intended purpose of the article.

13.4 Structure, Clarity and Coherence

  • The title accurately represents the content.

  • The article has a logical structure and key concepts are adequately explained.

  • Terminology is used consistently and the content is understandable to its intended audience.

  • The conclusion or summary appropriately reflects the material presented.

13.5 References, Attribution and Sources

  • Important sources are appropriately cited.

  • Quotations and borrowed material are properly attributed.

  • References are relevant and reasonably adequate.

  • Claims requiring evidence are supported.

  • The treatment of primary sources, translations, and secondary scholarship is transparent.

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

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.

Important: The reviewer provides an independent scholarly assessment. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the submission rests with the Editor.

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

16. Quick Workflow Reference

Request Accept Guidelines Review Recommend Submit

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

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.ikswiki.in/index.php?title=Fdfg&oldid=2537"