Fdfg

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.