During the past forty
two years, the Journal has firmly established itself as one of the premier
research publications (and only one of its kind) in India. It is also covered by
many international secondary journals, such as INSPEC Science Abstracts
(Parts A, B&C); Mathematical Reviews, Chemical Abstracts, Engineering
Index and COMPENDEX, BIOSIS, Indian Science Abstracts, etc

Lakshmana Moorthy, A

English

Librarians' Digital Library

TOWARDS A CHANGE 
This issue opens the fortyfirst volume of the Defence Science Journal 
(DSJ) in its forty-third year of publication (only one volume was published in 
1949150 and the Jomal was not published in 1951). During the past forty 
two years, the Journal has firmly established itself as one of the premier 
research publications (and only one of its kind) in India. It is also covered by 
many international secondary journals, such as INSPEC Science Abstracts 
(Parts A, B&C); Mathematical Reviews, Chemical Abstracts, Engineering 
Index and COMPENDEX, BIOSIS, Indian Science Abstracts, etc. We have 
thought of taking this opportunity to provide in this issue, a review of the 
Editorial practices of the Journal to inform the contributors, reviewers, and 
readers about the process of selection ot papers and their publication. 
For quite some time now, the Editors of the Journal are trying to improve 
its standard, both in quality of the papers published and in production. First 
and foremost was the change in the printing quality. Until 1980, the Journal 
was being printed in the Government of India Press, Shimla. The geographical 
distance between the Press and the Editorial Office, the severe limitations 
in the type faces and fonts used and the resulting errors (sometimes) were 
removed from 1981 when the Journal was given to private printers in New 
Delhi. From 1987, the Journal is printed in-house, under the supervision of 
the editorial and the printing staff. This has given high flexibility in publication, 
which resulted in minimising the errors and vastly improving the printing 
quality. 
The second measure taken was in editorial processing--in the selection 
of referees and the guidelines provided for refereeing the submitted papers. 
A number of guidelines were formulated and new forms were designed to 
minimise the time taken for refeering. Another measure has been towards 
standardisation. Guidelines have been prepared covering right from the first 
page of the paper to the last page including references. Thus, practices like 
using different units for similar measurements and different citation orders 
Defence Science Journal, 1991, 41(1), v-viii. (editorial).
in references to the same type of documents have been avoided. In addition, 
starting from this issue, the contents have been grouped under major subject 
fields to facilitate the readers to quickly identify the items of their interest. 
Beginning with the April 1991 issue, the Journal will be following a new 
style for listing bibliographical references. The new style is based on a detailed 
study of the various existing styles. 
Many a time the papers submitted for publication in the DSJ do not 
conform to its style in the citation pattern and in the organisation of the 
contents. Such papers take a good deal of time for copy editing. If papers 
submitted fit in the Journals' style, normally minimum changes would be 
required and a lot of time of the Editors, typesetters and proof-readers saved. 
Therefore, a need was felt to provide detailed guidelines to the authors and 
so, they are included in this issue (pp. 101-104). The authors may also note 
that they can submit, if they like, their papers on floppy diskettes in 
Wordstarcompatible format, as DESIDOC has the capability to typeset the 
material directly without rekeying all the matter (see p. (iii) for more 
information). 
DSJ Miorial Policies and Procedures 
The scope and Information to Authors are included in each and every 
issue of the Journal. However, many readers and potential contributors may 
not be aware of the actual process by which a paper is selected for publication 
in the Journal. A brief description of the various procedures and policies 
followed by the Journal is therefore given here for the benefit of such people. 
Review Process 
Normally, any paper received for publication in the Journal is accepted 
only after it is peer-evaluated. The first step in the evaluation process is the 
preliminary scrutiny by the Editors. For this purpose several criteria are applied 
which include the scope of the paper, Defence applications, style of 
presentation, importance of the subject covered by the paper, conciseness, 
references and their style. If the Editors feel that the paper is out of the 
scope of the Journal, it is returned to the author with an explanatory note. 
The review process normally takes two to four months and is designed 
to help the Editors in deciding on the acceptance or otherwise, of the papers. 
Usually, a paper is sent to two subject specialists who are active in research 
in the subject of the paper, for evaluation. When an evaluation report indicates 
any bias on the part of the evaluator or referee, the Editors may act as 
arbitrators or choose to send the paper to a third referee. The practice usually 
followed by DSJ is anonymous refereeing and referees' names are also not 
communicated to the authors. It is very seldom that a paper is accepted for 
publication with a negative report by referees, as a referee, in the opinion 
of the Editors, is often better qualified to judge a paper than an Editor. The 
main aspects taken into consideration while refereeing the papers are: the 
originality and scientific quality of the c~ntents,~reporting of new advances 
in the subject fields, adequate description of procedures/experimental 
methods, adequacy of references cited, and its Defence applications. The 
referees have four grades in rating a paper, namely, outstanding, very good, 
good and poor. They also indicate if a paper can be published as it is, or with 
minor revisions, or reconsidered after major revisions, or rejected outright. 
Revisions 
Upon receiving the comments from the referee, the first author (or 
whosoever has submitted the paper) is sent a copy of the typescript along 
with the comments of the referee. If the author feels that the observations 
of the referee are genuine and will improve the quality of the paper, he can 
revise their paper as per the suggestions. But when the author believes that 
* the review report is incorrect, biased or unwarranted, he can submit a 
point-by-point rebuttal to the referee's comments. In the case of minor 
revisions, the Editors themselves would analyse whether the points raised 
by the referee have been clarified. When major revision is warranted, the 
revised paper along with the original paper, referee's comments and author's 
reply would be sent to the referee for reconsideration. The final decision 
regarding acceptance of such paper is taken only after the receipt of referees' 
comments on the revised paper. Very rarely a paper is sent for another 
revision to authors. 
Acceptance and Publication 
When a paper is formally accepted, the author is informed of the decision 
and a probable date of publication. However, the actual publication depends 
upon the schedule of the special issues and also on the order of its original 
receipt at the Editorial Office. Once a paper is processed for publication, 
within two months the author will receive the galley proofs. Adequate care 
is to be taken by the authors while checking the galleys, especially the 
mathematical equations, as authors are generally responsible for the 
authenticity and accuracy of the contents of papers published. Only minor 
alterations are accepted at this stage, unless breakthroughs in the field 
warrant major changes, in which case the paper is re-scheduled for publication 
in a subsequent issue. The galleys must be returned within a week, preferably 
(vii) 
by speed post, as it would greately help in keeping up the publication 
schedule. After publication of the issue, one printed copy of the Journal 
alongwith 30 reprints will be sent to the author with whom the 
correspondence was made. 
(viii) 


towards a change

https://drtc.isibang.ac.in/ldl/bitstream/1849/335/1/dsj4101005.pdf

towards a change

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Librarians' Digital Library