1. PANCHAKOTesSAYS has to be a leader in initiatives that drive the way information is reviewed, validated, archived and disseminated. Our members are to foster communication, build insights, and enable individual and collective advancement in academic research.
2. PANCHAKOTesSAYS does not confine itself to the boundaries of a single subject and hence would accept any paper from any subject with the only criteria that it is original and publishable as opined by its referees and editorial board. Hence, it is multi-disciplinary.
3. PANCHAKOTesSAYS does not confine itself to the boundaries of the state and hence would go international to accept quality articles.
4. PANCHAKOTesSAYS will follow a double-blind peer review process by engaging substantive experts to read and comment on new research in the fields in which they study in order to validate and certify that research. This is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them.
5. PANCHAKOTesSAYS will be published bi-annually one in May and another in November. The May issue will be called the “Summer Issue” and the November issue will be called the “Winter Issue”. However, due to over demand or special theme, the journal can be published third time in one year if the editorial board decides.
6. To maintain transparency, Editors should work with the journal publisher/editorial office to agree processes for handling submissions that are the most efficient and appropriate for the journal. Electronic submission systems can be designed to ensure authors provide all required information (eg authorship declarations, funding information), but this should be balanced against the need to avoid over-complex submission systems which may be off putting. It may be helpful to require all elements are complete before a manuscript will be sent for peer review (since chasing details at a later stage can delay publication and upset schedules). We might consider checking for the following elements (as appropriate):

• Confirmation that the authors have read and understood the Instructions to Authors
• Permission obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources
• Documentation for any citations to unpublished work (eg articles in press/ personal communications)
• Information about previous submissions to other journals (eg name of journal, reviewer comments)
• Confirmation that the manuscript has been submitted solely to your journal and is not published, in press, or submitted elsewhere.

7. Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and reminded. We should consider including the following points:

• Reviews should be conducted objectively.
• Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary and not be defamatory or libelous.
• Reviewers should declare any competing interests.
• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
• If a reviewer wants to pass a review request onto a colleague, they should get the editor’s permission beforehand.

8. Editors should not be denied the ability to publish in their own journal, but they must not exploit their position. The journal must have a procedure for handling submissions from the editor or members of the editorial board that ensures that peer review is handled independently of the author/editor. This process should be detailed once the paper is published
9. Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
• it constitutes plagiarism
• it reports unethical research

10. PANCHAKOTesSAYS will however confine itself to the publication of scholarly articles only from its members. However, any one can be a member of PANCHAKOTesSAYS. This policy is just to multiply our family in order to create a large group of good researchers. The membership fee and price policy of the journal will be decided from time to time.

Editorial Board
PANCHAKOTesSAYS