Manuscript Acceptance Criteria (ASIO)
The meaning of qualitative manuscript can't describe in single word, there having various prospect to confirm whether the manuscript is valuable to us or not. Our Eminent Reviewer's comments and provide the marks in respect to various points, like -work is innovative or not, novelty or impact of work, use of recent research tools, whether this work was already reported to the some researchers, plagiarism of the manuscript and whether the reviewer accepted the manuscript without revision or with minor/major revision etc.
On the basis of the reviewer's comments, global rating and marks given by them, editorial board decided to accept the manuscript without any processing charge or not.
Deciding on a Global Rating
After writing a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, the reviewer is asked to provide a global rating (i.e., a recommendation for the manuscript). It is important that the reviewer be familiar with the possible global ratings because they can differ from one journal to another. ASIO Reviewers are provided with four possible global ratings: Accept, Accept Pending or minor Revisions, Reconsider After Major Revisions, and Reject.
The global rating of Accept is clear-cut and unambiguous; this rating implies that the reviewer does not see any need for revision of the manuscript and that it is suitable for publication “as is.” In fact, because most reviewers (with good reason) suggest changes to any manuscript, the Accept rating is granted to few manuscripts on initial review. Given that it is a rare manuscript that cannot be improved in some way, sometimes the Accept rating is an indication that the reviewer has not looked at the manuscript with an eye toward improvement. When revisions are suggested, the decision category always should be Accept Pending Revisions rather than Accept.
The Accept Pending or minor Revisions rating indicates that the reviewer finds some ways in which the manuscript should be changed before final acceptance. The suggested changes may include items such as a request for clarification of the methods (e.g., details regarding study design, entry criteria, whether film readers were blinded to information that might produce a biased reading, and so on). However, it is implied in this rating that the authors can reasonably make these changes and that doing so will more or less result in publication of the revised version of the original manuscript. For instance, it is not appropriate for the reviewer to provide the rating of Accept Pending Revisions if the reviewer is suggesting one or more major changes in study design. As an example, occasionally a reviewer will recommend that the manuscript be accepted pending revisions but request major changes in the methodology. Even if this suggestion is warranted, adopting it would necessitate performing the study over in a manner different from the first version of the study. In essence, this rating is a Reject operating under the guise of an Accept Pending Revisions. On a related note, the judgment as to whether the appropriate rating should be that of Accept Pending Revisions, rather than that of Reconsider After Major Revisions, does not rest on how many changes are suggested, but in the degree to which the sum of the changes alters the manuscript.
A rating of Reconsider After Major Revisions indicates that the reviewer believes that considerable changes are needed but that a reasonable possibility exists for the manuscript to proceed to publication. Examples of indications for providing this rating include a belief that, first, the reported data need to be analyzed in a different manner; second, additional data are needed; third, the authors have failed to appropriately take certain study factors into account; or fourth, the authors have not appropriately discussed their results against the background of previous studies. This rating is probably underused by many reviewers who instead recommend Accept Pending Revisions for a manuscript that needs substantial rewriting or reorganization before acceptance. In such instances, reviewers often request substantive changes but for one reason or another are reluctant to place a manuscript that has potential for publication in a category other than Accept Pending Revisions. It may be that reviewers believe that providing a rating of Reconsider After Major Revisions means that the manuscript is unlikely to be accepted for publication, but that is not, in fact, the case. Most manuscripts that receive a Reconsider After Major Revisions recommendation are ultimately published, with many of them published in the ASIO.
The Reject rating is provided when the reviewer is of the opinion that no amount of revision will make the manuscript suitable for the journal to which it was submitted. It is worth emphasizing that, in some cases, the rating is based not on the opinion that the manuscript is poorly written or an inadequate study. Instead, sometimes a reviewer recommends rejection on the belief that the manuscript was submitted to the inappropriate journal.
After receiving manuscript reviews, the ASIO journals editor must decide the outcome of a manuscript. It is important that the reviewer provide a clear explanation as to whether he or she deems the manuscript to be worth publishing. Although that statement may seem obvious, in a substantial number of manuscripts the reviewer's overall assessment is less than definitive. For example, sometimes the written review leads the reviewer toward one decision but the numeric rating provided by the reviewer indicates a different decision. It is not rare for a reviewer to offer comments that are strongly negative but to then recommend that the manuscript be accepted pending revisions. Such a review requires that the editor make a difficult choice: Either accept a manuscript that the reviewer appears to say is not worthy of publication or fail to accept a manuscript that the reviewer has technically asked to be accepted.
In case of the review manuscript, we decided whether the manuscript is Informative or not.