Journal of Shivaji University: Science & Technology Peer-review Process
Following steps are included under peer-review process:

a)    Initial Checking of Manuscript:

When the editor/associate editor receives a manuscript, he or she examines it and determines whether the manuscript fits within the scope of the journal, whether it meets the specific requirements (format, topic/field/area of interest, plagiarism) of the journal, and whether it is of sufficient scientific/technical merit for consideration. Not all manuscripts are transmitted to reviewers. In some cases, the editor decides to reject a manuscript without review, or rarely, to accept it for publication. Manuscripts are rejected without review for various reasons, including the following: the topic is inappropriate for the journal; the concept or the data are not novel; the format is incorrect; the writing is so poor that the manuscript is unreadable; or the authors have previously published overly similar papers. If a manuscript is rejected without review, the editor will usually briefly inform the author of the reasons. Some editors offer suggestions to help authors with future submissions.

b)    Sending to the reviewers:

If the editor decides to send the manuscript for peer review, customarily two to four individuals with appropriate expertise training or research experience are asked to review the manuscript. The editor may identify reviewers in a number of ways. Many editors ask authors to recommend reviewers; some do not. Author-recommended reviewers may or may not be used. Most editors will not send manuscripts to specific reviewers if an author so requests. Other potential reviewers may be authors cited in the manuscript, acknowledged experts in the field, or other active researchers in the field. Editor often uses scientific search services (such as SciFinder or SciFinder Scholar for chemists) to identify qualified potential reviewers. Reviewers may or may not be known personally to the editor. Journal maintains records on potential of reviewers according to area of interest, including their expertise, manuscripts reviewed by them, performance, and so on.
Usually, reviewers are asked whether they are willing to review a manuscript. If they agree, the manuscript is provided in e-copy (pdf), often with an accompanying review form. Editors generally ask reviewers to submit their reviews in two or three weeks. When a review is overdue, the editor usually sends a reminder to the reviewer.

c)    Decision of a manuscript by an Editor

Once reviews are returned, the editor reads the reviews in conjunction with the relevant manuscript, evaluating both the manuscript and the reviews, and then makes a decision whether to accept the manuscript, request revisions, reject the manuscript, or send it for additional review. In some cases of conflicting advice or opinions of
 
reviewers, editors may seek advice from others. Editors are not obligated to follow the recommendations of reviewers. Reviewer ratings are not averaged; often, a single cogent negative review leads to rejection of a manuscript.

d)    Revised submission of manuscript (with rebuttal letter) by author

If manuscript is either accepted or having minor/major revisions, the editor will return the peer-review manuscript with reviewer comments with a cover letter indicating what changes must be made for the final manuscript to be accepted. Accordingly authors revise the manuscript and then submit the revised version of manuscript to the Editor with rebuttal letter indicating what changes have been made.

e)    Review of revised submission by Editor and then final decision of the manuscript to the Authors

f)    Processing of the accepted Manuscript
Accepted manuscripts go through three phases before publications: technical editing, authors proof, correction by the publisher.

g)    Publication of the accepted manuscripts