Editorial board
Editorial Board
The editors below provide the scholarly oversight for the Journal of Current Scientific Research. Each entry carries the institution the editor works at, the subject the journal assigns to them, and, where one has been supplied, the ORCID iD that identifies the person.
This page sets out how a manuscript reaches an editor competent to judge it, how the listed members' subject expertise supports assessment across scientific disciplines, who the members are, and what governs an editorial decision.
How the board works
Editorial modelA journal that publishes across several fields has to be able to show, for any one manuscript, that it reached someone competent to judge it. That obligation sits with the editors, not with the reader, and it is the reason this page lists the board in full rather than summarizing it.
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Competent editorial handling and qualified independent review must both be arranged; recruiting reviewers does not make an unqualified handling editor appropriate. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
What a board member does
Members assess submissions in their own subject, appoint and evaluate reviewers, and make or recommend the decision on the manuscripts they handle. A member who has an interest in a submission is replaced for that manuscript.
Where the rules are set out
Editorial Policies carries authorship, competing interests, confidentiality, corrections and misconduct handling in full.
Aims and Scope sets out the discipline-open remit and the scientific standards a manuscript must meet.
For Editors sets out what the journal asks of a member and how to join the board.
For Reviewers sets out what a review is expected to cover.
Where subject expertise sits
Subject coverageThese groups summarize recorded subject expertise where it is available; they are not an exhaustive list of eligible scientific disciplines. Aims and Scope welcomes all scientific disciplines. Where additional expertise is needed, the journal must arrange both competent handling and independent review before proceeding.
Field I
Physical and chemical sciences
For manuscripts in this area, the journal must first designate a handling editor with the relevant subject expertise and arrange qualified independent reviewers. If the listed board cannot provide competent editorial handling, the journal must appoint a suitably qualified editor through its editorial appointment process before review can proceed. External reviewers do not replace a qualified handling editor. If either requirement cannot be met, the manuscript does not proceed.
Field II
Biological and health sciences
pharmacology and drug development · molecular biology and genetics · microbiology and virology · biomedical and clinical research
- Bhupinder MannAdult Brain Cancer therapeutic
- Mingyan XuDNA sequencing
- Mukhtar AnsariAntibiotic resistance
- Shailendra DwivediGynecological cancers
- Stefan SchopfLaparoscopic Surgery
Field III
Engineering and technology
machine learning and applied artificial intelligence · chemical and industrial process engineering
- Eva VolnaArtificial Intelligence
- Saeid Jafarzadeh-GhoushchiRobust Optimization
- Selahaddin Batuhan AkbenData Mining
- Yi WangOil & Gas Storage
Field IV
Environmental and earth sciences
For manuscripts in this area, the journal must first designate a handling editor with the relevant subject expertise and arrange qualified independent reviewers. If the listed board cannot provide competent editorial handling, the journal must appoint a suitably qualified editor through its editorial appointment process before review can proceed. External reviewers do not replace a qualified handling editor. If either requirement cannot be met, the manuscript does not proceed.
Further
Further and interdisciplinary areas
agricultural biotechnology
- Romesh Kumar SalgotraPlant Biotechnology
The board
MembersMembers are listed with their recorded role and affiliation. Subject expertise is shown where it has been recorded; individual manuscript assignments require a separate assessment of the editor's competence and competing interests. An ORCID iD is shown where the editor has supplied one.
Editorial Board
Head - Genitourinary and Brain Cancer Therapeutics, United States
Adult Brain Cancer therapeutic
University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
Professor and Dean, School of Building and Mechanical Science, K.S.Rangasamy College of Technology, India
Mechanical Engineering and Composite Materials
University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia
SKUAST-Jammu, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Urmia University of Technology, Urmia, Iran
Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, Osmaniye, Turkey
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
RoMed Klinik Bad Aibling, Bad Aibling, Bayern, Germany
Editorial governance
What constrains a decisionThe statements below are the constraints an editor works under, in summary. Each of them is set out in full in the journal's Editorial Policies.
- Editorial independence
-
Editorial decisions are taken by the handling editor on the reviewers' assessments. The article processing charge is raised only after a manuscript has been accepted, and payment plays no part in whether a manuscript is accepted, in how quickly it is handled, or in which reviewers are appointed.
- Competing interests
-
Authors, editors and reviewers declare competing interests, and an editor with an interest in a submission is replaced for that manuscript.
- Peer review
-
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
- Confidentiality
-
Peer review is confidential. Editors and reviewers must not share manuscript content or use unpublished data for personal benefit.
- Decisions
-
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
- Research integrity
-
Submissions are screened with Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate. Authorship, competing interests, ethical approval and data availability are declared at submission, and suspected misconduct is handled through the journal's published procedure.
- Appeals and complaints
-
An author may appeal a decision by responding in detail to the reviewers' comments. Concerns about the conduct of a review or an editorial decision may be raised with the editorial office, and are handled confidentially.
Related pages
Journal pagesThis page carries the board and the governance around it.
Published by Open Access Pub. ISSN 2766-8681 (electronic). Crossref DOI prefix 10.14302. Articles are published open access under CC BY 4.0; authors retain copyright. Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Editorial office: [email protected].