Guidelines for Contributors

• The paper should be submitted by email to: anvesak@spiesr.ac.in

• Be careful of fraudulent agents/publishers demanding payment from authors/scholars to publish papers in Anvesak. Please note that Anvesak has NOT authorised any agents to deal with authors regarding publication of the research papers, nor does Anvesak ask authors for payments. Papers are published in Anvesak purely on the basis of merit/quality. If your paper is accepted by Anvesak, it will be published at free of cost. Authors are suggested to directly submit their papers to the official email ID of Anvesak. In addition, let us declare that Anvesak does not provide any publication certificate to the authors who publish with us. If somebody is assuring you to provide such a certificate on your publication, consider the same as a fake certificate.   
• ANVESAK publishes papers broadly belonging to the discipline of economics. 

• The paper submitted for publication in ANVESAK should be an original piece and should not have been submitted elsewhere for publication. The authors should clearly mention this in the forwarding letter/email, while submitting the paper. Without this declaration, papers will not be considered. Authors should also mention their designations and affiliations. Please note that we do not consider papers written on particular companies/banks for publication in our journal.

• As regards plagiarisum, Anvesak checks the manuscripts before publishing. If a manuscript is found to be beyond the 10% plagiarism limit, it is not published in our journal.

• The paper should start with a precise title. Try to avoid a lengthy title.

• The length of the paper should be between 6000 and 8000 words.

• The paper should be accompanied with an abstract of 100-125 words, and 6 keywords.

• Submit your paper as a word document, not as a pdf file.

• Do not use colours in figures and diagrams.

• The first page of the paper should contain the title of the paper and the author’s details (designation, affiliation and contact details).

• The second page of the paper should start with the title of the paper, followed by the abstract, keywords and introduction, respectively.

• Authors must use “equation” tool in MS word, while inserting mathematical symbols, notations, equations in the paper.

• Do all the references cited in the text also appear in the reference list? And, have all the references given in the reference list been cited in the text?

• Is the language of the paper good enough? ANVESAK is published by a research institute, not by a (commercial) publishing house. ANVESAK does not have English correction service. Papers written in poor English will be rejected. Authors are advised to get the language in the paper checked by an expert before submission.
• Authors are strongly suggested to avoid plagiarism. Once caught, proper action may be taken. 
• Anvesak publishes only unpublished manuscript. If a manuscript has already been published in any form (journal article, book chapter, conference proceeding/volume, etc.), Anvesak will not publish the same paper, even partially, or on the same theme. A paper, already accepted by Anvesak, will even be rejected, if it is proved that the authors have violated our policy mentioned above.
• ANVESAK follows the following citation styles in the text:

               i)   For one author: (Chakravarty, 1985)   /   Chakravarty (1985) argues that …

              ii)   For two authors: (Singh and Kaura, 1980)   /   Singh and Kaura (1980) argue that …

             iii)   For more than two authors: (Diallo et al., 2010)   /   Diallo et al. (2010) argue that …

• ANVESAK follows the following reference styles for the reference list (as per authorship):

i) For one author: Chakravarty, S. (1985), “Methodology and Economics”, Journal of Quantitative Economics, 1(1): 1-9.

ii) For two authors: Singh, M. and V.D. Kaura (1980), Working Children in Bombay: A Study, New Delhi: National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development.

iii) For more than two authors: Diallo, Y., F. Hagemann, A. Etienne, Y. Gurbuzer and F. Mehran (2010), Global Child Labour Developments: Measuring Trends from 2004 to 2008, Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, Statistical Information and Monitoring Programme on Child Labour (SIMPOC).

• ANVESAK follows the following reference styles for reference list (as per category of publication):

Book/Monograph: Sen, A. K. (1973), On Economic Inequality, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Chapter in edited book: Bhalla, S., A.K. Karan and T. Shobha (2006), “Rural Casual Labourers, Wages and Poverty: 1983 to 1999-2000”. In Chronic Poverty and Development Policy in India, A. Kapur Mehta and A. Shepherd (eds.), pp. 86-147, New Delhi: Sage.

Journal article: Chakravarty, S. (1985), “Methodology and Economics”, Journal of Quantitative Economics, 1(1): 1-9.

Working paper: Briglauer, W. (2000), “Motives for Firm Diversification: A Survey on Theory and Empirical Evidence”, WIFO Working Paper No. 126, Vienna: Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO).

Govt/other report: Government of India (2016), “Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2015”, New Delhi: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India.

Conference paper: Davidsson, P., L. Achtenhagen and L. Naldi (2005), “Research on Small Firm Growth: A Review”, A paper presented at the 35th Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Small Business (EISB) Conference, 12-14 September, Barcelona: IESE (Instituto de Estudios Superiores de la Empresa) Business School.

Ph.D./Masters thesis: Njoroge, R.M. (2013), “Relationship between Financial Literacy and Entrepreneurial Success in Nairobi County, Kenya”, Masters Thesis, Kenya: University of Nairobi.

• Once the editorial team receives a paper, it is scrutinized for its suitability for publication in ANVESAK. If the paper meets the basic parameters, it then passes through the internal review process. At this phase, a paper may be rejected. The papers that are not rejected during the internal review process are sent to anonymous reviewers for evaluation. The entire review process takes about 2-3 months time.

• ETHICS & RESPONSIBILITIES: NOTES FOR AUTHORS

This journal upholds the highest standards of publication integrity. We follow COPE guidelines in all matters, including the investigation of misconduct.

Authors share responsibility for maintaining the trustworthiness of the scientific record. Misrepresentation of research damages confidence in the journal, the integrity of authorship, and science itself. To that end, authors must adhere to the following principles of good scientific practice:

• Publication Practices & Originality

Exclusive Submission: Manuscripts must not be under simultaneous consideration by more than one journal.

Original Work: Submitted work must be original and not published previously in any form or language (except as an expansion of prior work, which requires full transparency to avoid text-recycling/self-plagiarism).

Salami-Slicing Prohibition: Fragmenting a single study into multiple papers to increase publication quantity ("salami-slicing/publishing") is unacceptable.

Justified Secondary Publication: Concurrent or secondary publication (e.g., translations, manuscripts for different audiences) is permitted only under specific ethical conditions.

• Research Integrity & Presentation

Honest Reporting: Results must be presented clearly and honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data/image manipulation. Discipline-specific rules for data collection and processing must be followed.

Plagiarism Prevention: Authors must not present the data, text, or ideas of others as their own. All sources must be properly acknowledged through citation, paraphrase, or quotation with permission for copyrighted material.

Note: The journal uses plagiarism detection software.

Permissions: Authors must secure necessary permissions for the use of software, questionnaires, surveys, or scales in their research.

• Authorship, Citation, & Language

Accurate Authorship: The author list, corresponding author, and author order must be correct at submission. Post-submission changes are discouraged and require detailed justification. No changes are permitted after manuscript acceptance.

Responsible Citation: All articles must cite relevant literature to support claims. Excessive self-citation or coordinated citation among authors is prohibited.

Professional Discourse: Authors must avoid untrue statements or personal attacks against individuals or organizations.

• Special Considerations

Dual-Use Research: Research with potential misuse threatening public health or national security (e.g., biosecurity, chemical hazards, weaponizable technology) must be clearly identified in the manuscript.

Data Transparency: Authors must provide raw data, samples, or records upon request to validate results (confidential/proprietary information excluded).

Error Correction: Authors are obligated to promptly notify the journal of any significant error in their published work to coordinate a correction or retraction.

• Authorship Integrity

Authors bear full responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the authorship list. Please verify the following with all co-authors prior to submission:

- The full list of authors and their order of appearance.

- The designation of the Corresponding Author, who will manage all communication.

• Changes to authorship are strongly discouraged and subject to strict policy:

During Review: Changes to the author group (additions, deletions, or order changes) are generally not permitted. In exceptional circumstances, they may be considered only with a detailed, compelling justification from the corresponding author, which all co-authors must formally endorse.

After Acceptance: No changes to authorship can be made once a manuscript has been accepted for publication.

It is crucial to resolve all authorship matters before submission to avoid delays or complications.

• Consequences of Misconduct

Allegations of ethical breaches are investigated as per COPE guidelines. If concerns are validated, corresponding authors will be contacted. Consequences may include:

- Rejection of a manuscript under consideration.

- Publication of a correction (erratum), Expression of Concern, or Retraction for a published article.

- Notification of the authors' institution.

- A formal notice attached to the article's and authors' bibliographic record.

A retracted article remains on the platform, watermarked "Retracted," with a linked note explaining the reason.

• GUIDELINES FOR PEER REVIEWERS

Peer reviewers play a vital role in upholding scholarly integrity and advancing knowledge. Your objective and constructive assessment is essential. Please adhere to the following core principles and evaluation framework.

Core Ethical Principles

Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and all related materials as strictly confidential. Do not disclose any details or use the knowledge gained for personal advantage.

Objectivity & Integrity: Provide unbiased, respectful, and constructive feedback. Your critique should be based solely on the work's scholarly merit.

Conflict of Interest: Declare any potential conflicts—whether financial, personal, professional, or intellectual—that could compromise your impartiality.

Timeliness: Submit your review within the agreed timeframe. Prompt evaluations are crucial for the publication process and respect the authors' work.

Property & Attribution: Respect the intellectual property rights of the authors. Acknowledge and properly cite any relevant prior work in your comments.

Manuscript Evaluation Framework

Please consider these key questions in your assessment:

1.Significance & Originality

- Does the manuscript address a relevant and interesting research question?

- What original contribution does it make to the field? How does it advance upon existing knowledge?

2.Rigor & Validity

- Are the methodology and analysis sound and appropriate?

- Are the authors’ conclusions fully and logically supported by the evidence presented?

- If challenging established views, is the argument substantial and well-defended? If not, what evidence would be required to strengthen the case?

3.Clarity & Presentation

- Is the manuscript clearly written and well-structured, making the argument easy to follow?

- Do all tables, figures, and images effectively support the findings? Are any redundant or unclear?

Your review should ultimately help the editors make a decision and provide the authors with clear, actionable feedback to improve their work. Thank you for your essential contribution to the scholarly process.