Submission of manuscript should be the original work of the author(s). Author(s) is / are required transferring the copyright of the manuscript to the Publisher for publishing in the journal. The publisher holds copyright of the manuscript unless otherwise not communicated. It further implies that the manuscript submitted has neither published anywhere nor been kept under consideration for publication. The contributors must provide their affiliations and complete mailing addresses on their papers.

Submitted manuscripts in English should be up to about 3000 words including abstract, tables and references. An abstract of around 100 words, key words a brief description about themselves along with areas of their specializations may be submitted along with the manuscript. The MSS must contain a Non-plagiarised Declaration.

The English manuscript should be submitted as MS word andPDFfile in the Times New Roman (12 size) with 1.5 spacing.References and short Bibliography to be added at the end of Article.The manuscript should be mailed to iccbs@visva-bharati.ac.in

This is informed to all the writers and readers that GAUTAM SCHOLAR is being declared as a "Peer Reviewed Research Journal" by constituting a Peer Review Committee with eminent scholars and educationists to improve the quality and maintain the plagiarism in the field of Research by reviewing the articles before publish. The reviewing system is double-blind.

1. 1. Submission of Paper with a Non-plagiarised Declaration.
2. 2. The corresponding or submitting author will submit the paper to the journal.
3. 3. This is usually online submission system via email.
4. 4. The journal will go through the paper's composition and arrangement against the Author Guidelines of Journal to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper will not be assessed at this point.
5. 5. The EIC will check that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
6. 6. Editors will handle the peer review system. If they do, they will be assigned at this stage.

Invitation to Reviewers

Editor or the editorial board will send invitations to individuals who are appropriate reviewers for a particular subject. As responses are received, further invitations will be issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained.

Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers should consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then may accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

Conducting of review

The reviewer will set time aside to read the paper several times. The first read will be used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable for rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review will be then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor will consider all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

Communication of the Decision

The editor will send a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

Next Steps

If accepted, the paper will be sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author to improve the article At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.