For Authors

Cover letter:

A cover letter must be submitted stating that the manuscript has been approved from all authors. Authors should also make sure that the manuscript was not been published elsewhere.

Manuscript should be written in correct English, without any grammatical errors. Manuscripts, which do not meet below standards will be sent back to author without further review.

Original research article should be in following order:

  • Title
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • Introduction
  • Materials and Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
  • Tables, and Figure legends

Figures and supplementary data should be sent in a separate file.


Title should be in Title case, centered and bold in Arial 15 font at page top.
It must be Informative, descriptive, Concise and should reflect the scope of manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations:

Author`s affiliation should have author full name, Institute, Department, Organization, City, State and country, Email.
In case of authors with different affiliations, use superscripts to match authors with different institutions.
Corresponding author name should be indicated by asterisk with complete postal address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address.


Abstract should highlight the significance of manuscript, clearly with no references cited to the text. Abbreviations should be avoided. Preferable format should include background, methods, results and conclusion. It should be concise, complete, and clearly mention the importance of the work.


  • Provide 8-10 keywords.
  • Names of drugs and compounds used in text should be mentioned.


  • Text part should be divided in to Introduction, Materials and methods, Results and Discussion.
  • List every heading and subheading as 1., 2., 3., and then 1.1., 1.2., 1.3 and so on.
  • Body text should be in times new roman 12, arranged with headings and subheadings to facilitate readers.
  • Introduction should be written in brief without subheadings. It should be complete and concise. Previous publications, which forms the basis to present work must be cited.

Materials and Methods:

Describe the methods completely that were done in manuscript presentation. All novel materials and the methods should be described in sufficient detail.  In materials and methods, you may add subheadings, which provide the overview of study. It should describe all the procedures and cited with references.


Results should provide complete details of the experiment, required to support conclusion of the study.
Results and discussion may be combined or in a separate section. They can be subdivided if the subheadings give more clarity to the manuscript.


Discussion should cover the key findings of the study. Discuss the novelty of the discovery in the appropriate context and how this advances the current views; speculate on the future direction of the research.


Acknowledgment the contribution of people, institutions, or agencies. Grant details, funds, etc. are included in this section.


  • Cite references in the text by number
  • References should be listed in numbers
  • They should be indicated in the text numerically, within square brackets, i.e., [15].
  • Multiple citations should be separated by commas.
  • All the references should have links
  • If there are more than 3 authors, et al should be added
  • Journal short name should be in italics
  • Volume number followed by colon, followed by page number range.

For book reference: Editor name with year in brackets, followed by book title. Edition number within brackets followed by location, publisher name.

For conference proceedings: Author of Paper A, Author of Paper B. (Year, Month) Title of paper. Paper presented at Title of Conference, Location


For Journal: Joshua Tobias, Eias Kassem, Uri Rubinstein, et al. (2015) Involvement of main diarrheagenic Escherichia coli, with emphasis on enteroaggregative E. coli, in severe non-epidemic pediatric diarrhea in a high-income country. BMC Infectious Diseases. 15: 1-7.

For Book: Laplace MD (2000) The battered child. (5th edn) Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

For conference proceedings: Brown S, Caste V (2004, May) Integrated obstacle detection framework. Paper presented at the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Detroit, MI.

For Editors

Thinkershub Journals are responsible towards the authors, peer reviewers, journal readers and scientific community. Editor-in-Chief / Editors play crucial role to maintain and improve standards of the journal by fostering the quality of a publication and the journal's content. Editors has no bond for accepting the responsibilities, and can serve as long as give the maximum towards the journal through their eminence in research & expertise in respective field.

Responsibilities for Editors

  • Editorial position is a voluntary service towards Open Access community.
  • Every Editorial Board member has to review/process at least four manuscripts per annum.
  • Editors should determine the quality of the article once it is received from the editorial office.
  • Editors should response to the editorial office to complete the review process within the provided timeline.
  • Editors should Provide guidelines to authors for preparing, submitting manuscripts and making revised version according to peer review comments.
  • Editors must be open and fair while reviewing and assessing the manuscript review decisions. Partiality will harm the quality of the manuscript.
  • Decision making should be perfect and accurate, so that the author cannot blame editor and the editorial office.
  • Editor needs to describe and implement new reviewing policies for handling article and also find the misconducts of author or reviewer involved in peer review system.
  • Editors should support and promote the journal.
  • Confidentiality of authors work is very important; editor should protect the data of author and maintain confidentiality.

Benefits for Editors

  • In newly launched journals, first issue will be released with minimum of 5 to 7 manuscripts with free of cost which were submitted by editor.
  • Certificate will be provided to editorial members.
  • Editors profile is displayed on our website with image, logo, biography and area of interest.
  • Thinkershub company provides discount to editors in publication and attend company conferences.

For Reviewer

  • Conflict of interest: Please inform the editors or journal staff and recuse yourself if you feel that you are unable to offer an impartial review. When submitting your review, you must indicate whether or not you have any competing interests. Authors have no influence over choosing reviewers other than stating if there may be a conflict of interest in their cover letter.
  • Timing: If you are reviewing a manuscript, please aim to complete your review within 10 days. If you need more time or are unable to perform the review, please notify us immediately so that we can keep the authors informed and assign alternate reviewers if necessary.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewer should treat the manuscript in a confidential manner. Manuscript should not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of review submission.
  • Review writing: The purpose of the review is to provide the Academic Editor and Professional Editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration. Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the paper should be directed to the authors themselves.

The best possible review will answer the following questions:

  1. Does present manuscript have new ideas or results that have not been previously published?
  2. Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
  3. Does the main claims of the paper are significant?
  4. Do the data support the claims?
  5. Does it help to expand or further research in this subject area?
  6. Is this paper outstanding in its discipline?
  7. Are the results/ideas presented in this paper important enough for publication
  8. Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
  9. Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
  10. If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?
  • Decision process: Manuscripts are evaluated by a professional editor working in conjunction with an Academic Editor, usually but not always from the Editorial Board. Together, the editors make a decision based on the reviewers' comments. Reviewer should approach the peer-review job objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
  • Reviewer Decisions: Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. We will publish reviewer’s comments along with the accepted manuscript.

Specific decisions used by Thinkershub journals:

  1. Accept without any changes (acceptance): Journal will publish the paper in its original form.
  2. Accept with minor revisions (acceptance): Journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections.
  3. Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): Journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors.
  4. Revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): Journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes.
  5. Reject the paper (outright rejection): Journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.
  • Manuscript detailed Comments: Give specific comments and suggestions, including layout and format, Title, Abstract, Introduction, Graphical Abstracts and/or Highlights, Method, statistical errors, Results, Conclusion/Discussion, language and References.

We take this opportunity to thank all our peer reviewers for their vital contribution to the ongoing development and success of our journal.

Peer Review Process

Introduction to peer review:

Peer review is designed to assess the validity and quality of a manuscript before it is published. It is a process by which experts evaluate scholarly works, and its objective is to ensure a high quality of published science. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

Open peer review system:

Typically, after a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. If it does, the journal editorial team or journal’s editorial board will select potential peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review the manuscript and make recommendations.

There are three common types of peer review for journal publication:

  • Single-blind: Reviewers names are not revealed to authors, but reviewer know the names of the authors.
  • Double-blind: Both reviewers and authors names are not revealed to each other.
  • Open peer review: Authors know names of the reviewers, and the reviewers know names of authors.

If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published along with the article as Open Peer Review Reports. Different journals use different types of peer review. You can find out which peer-review system is used by a particular journal in the journal’s ‘About Us’ page.

Peer review advantages:

Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the manuscript. Peer reviewers are ideally experts in their field and who volunteer their time to help improve the journal manuscripts by their review and also offer free advices to authors.

Thinkershub Journals usually build a pool of peer reviewers that have a good track record of producing high quality reviews. Generally, a minimum of 2 peer reviewers (up to 6) are chosen for the peer review.

Through the peer review process, manuscripts should become:

  • More robust - peer reviewers may point out gaps in your manuscript that require more explanation or additional experiments.
  • Easier to read - if parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can suggest revisions.
  • More useful - peer reviewers also consider the importance of your manuscript to others in your field.

Editorial decision:

The journal editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision.

The following are the most common decisions that are made:
  • Accept without any changes (acceptance): The journal will publish the paper in its original form. This is rare.
  • Accept with minor revisions (acceptance): The journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections. This is the best outcome authors should hope for.
  • Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): The journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors.
  • Revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): The journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes.
  • Reject the paper (outright rejection): The journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

Editors’ decision-making policies vary: some reject when even one peer reviewer recommends rejection, some when the majority recommend rejection, and some only when all reviewers recommend rejection.

©2018 Openaccessnest All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions