For Authors


Our job is to make everything easy during the publishing journey because we know your research will have the needed impact in tackling today's challenges. We expect your research to be rewarding because our magazines accept only the best works. At Luminous Insights, we support you throughout the manuscript preparation process, from writing it to preparing a great article that can be read and cited. We give you guidelines to ensure your manuscript has a chance of acceptance. Follow the author's instructions in your chosen journal. Before you start writing your manuscript, consider the following:

Publication Ethics

There is no perfect definition of authorship, and practices vary by discipline and communities, especially when individuals collaborate across subject areas. In each discipline, there are special criteria, however, the minimum known requirements for authorship contribute significantly to the research and are responsible for the work performed (see COPE discussion document: Authorship).

See also

These Best Practices Guidelines for Publication Ethics have been widely recognized and can be found as a comprehensive guide to publishing ethics in the field.

What you should do before sending the manuscript

You must search for the appropriate journal to publish your research through:

An overview of the Journal, its aims, and scope, do they match your article well?

Read the author's instructions (link) to make sure your manuscript is ready for submission.

Read the editorial policies.

Read the publisher's policies, open access policy, code of conduct, review process, privacy policy, terms and conditions, cookie agreement, and finally, publication ethics.

Note the following when preparing the manuscript

Prepare your article to fit the Journal's formats. You can use various authoring tools to help simplify the intricacies of writing, and organize your writing using a multitude of journal templates. Take into account the formats of the journal regarding the division of the manuscript into sections, how to write references in the body of the research paper, and the list of references, tables and figures, mathematical equations, code and numbers, and other formats. An authoring tool such as can be used.

Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

More than 50% of the traffic to scientific journals comes directly from Google, Google Scholar, and other search engines. We go to great efforts to make your search content visible and rank highly in search results on Google and other search engines. To increase the discoverability of your article, improve the search results for your article, and help people find and cite your work, you should:

Use a short title, be sure to use a search-engine-friendly title by including a word or keywords related to your topic. Also, try to support the title with your keywords. Remember that keywords are important for A&I services as well as SEO.

In the summary, improve your summary by embedding words from the title in the first line or the first two sentences of the summary. The main conclusions should be placed at the beginning of the abstract as well. Also, forget to repeat your keywords no more than 6 times.

Use keywords in sub-headings as well because they help direct search engines to the content of your article. Try to use keywords that are consistent with the scope of the manuscript and stay away from vulgarity, repetition, and filler. Your work should be consistent with previous online publications.

Share your article across institutional websites, social media, and networks to build links with individuals/institutions to increase impact. The more links to your article, the more search engines will appreciate and highlight your business content.

Submission checklist

You may feel frustrated when you think that it takes too long to format a manuscript to the requirements of a journal. The submission system allows you to reduce the time you spend on manuscript formatting as well as simplifies the submission process. You can submit your manuscript in a free format and you don't have to worry about following the format requirements upon initial submission. When submitting, do the following: Read the requirements for submitting the journal of your choice. You can access the submission system directly through the main page in the top menu " Submit a paper". Luminous Insights journals use the Manuscript Manager system. Three simple steps to submit your manuscript (Click here)

Getting Started

On the journal’s homepage, click the ‘Submit a paper’ option on the right-hand side menu to open the Manuscript Manager homepage

Log-in or ‘Register Now’ if you are a first-time user

Submitting your manuscript

From the Author Main Menu, click ‘Submit New Manuscript’

Enter data and answer questions as prompted

Tip: Be sure to enter all of your funder and grant information in the Funder Information section. This helps us ensure you meet all of your funder requirements.

Click on the ‘Next’ button on each screen to save your work and advance to the next screen

Upload your files by selecting the Item Type and then clicking the ‘Choose Files’ button and locating the files on your computer. (Alternatively, you can drag and drop files from an open window.)

Click ‘Build my PDF’ to prepare the PDF version. Follow the instructions on the screen to proceed to the ‘Submissions Awaiting Author Approval’ screen

View your submission in PDF format, then click ‘Approve Submission’ to submit your manuscript

You may suspend a submission at any phase before clicking ‘Approve Submission’ and save to submit later. When you login again to resume, click on the ‘Incomplete Submissions’ link to access the manuscript, and choose ‘Edit Submission’ from the Action menu.

After submission

You will receive a confirmation email after submission

You can log-in to Editorial Manager at any time to check the status of your manuscript

The journal will notify you by email once a decision is made

Getting help with your submission

If you need assistance, please contact the journal’s editorial office using the contact details on the journal homepage (under 'About' in the top-menu).

3- Read the peer review process and the possible outcomes of your manuscript. We use several models of peer review, starting with the traditional models (single-blind, the author does not know the identity of the reference; double-blind where the reviewer does not know the identity of the author and vice versa). There are recent models of peer review such as: Open peer review: The identity of the author and reviewer is known by all participants, during or after the review process. Transparent Peer Review: A review report is published with the published article. The reviewer can choose if they want to share their identity. Collaborative: Two or more reviewers work together to provide a consolidated report. Or the author reviews the manuscript under the supervision of one or more reviewers. Review a previously published paper, and one of the previous models may be used in the review process. Each of the previous models has its pros and cons. The editor determines which templates will be used based on the scope or discipline of the manuscript. The peer-review process helps make your work better. We share your work with experts in your field to pass on their suggestions for improving your article. Reviewers focus on the originality and accuracy of your work and whether it is within the scope of the journal. The peer-review process takes time, but its length varies with each journal. We recommend that you contact the editors for details about the process. We are committed to ensuring integrity in the peer review process, as we require peer reviewers to comply with COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. we respect the confidentiality of peer review process and not disclosing any details or any communications related to it regardless of the type of peer review process (single, double, or triple-blind), and we also ask the authors to respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process. If the peer-review process is open, it is subject to special guidelines that are clarified by the editor to the reviewer.

The peer-review process focuses on:

During the first reading, the reviewers will assess the structure of the argument and the clarity of language and content. During this, the focus will be on the manuscript's originality, scientific relevance, brevity and accuracy, and completeness and comprehensiveness of the manuscript. Reviewers also consider the title and whether it correctly reflects the topic of the paper. Does the summary give an overview of the paper and do the keywords accurately reflect the content? The structure of the paper is clear and organized, the paper is the appropriate length, and the messages are short, precise, and clear.

Reviewers will focus on the main question and whether it is of interest.

Is the topic real, and what would it add to the topic area compared to previous research?

Is the argument well-structured or is it based on incorrect or unrealistic arguments?

If the researcher's argument is inconsistent with the academic consensus, is this disagreement necessary, or is the researcher making strong arguments to make the case more credible?

Do figures and tables help with comprehension or are they are redundant? Are the figures, tables, language, and structure of the manuscripts clear enough to accurately evaluate the work? Are all figures and tables appropriate, adequate, and properly categorized?

Finally, are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and addressing the question asked?

The main flaws that reviewers focus on

Reviewers focus on the methodology and its integrity, and whether it follows best practices and meets the standards.

Has a similar work ever been published and does the author acknowledge it?

Were the ethical standards in the paper followed?

The focus is on comparing the current paper with published studies, and whether similar or dissimilar trends are discussed.

Is the evidence provided by the authors strong to make their case, are enough studies cited, and are they adequately covered? In other words, are the correct references cited, or is there bias, is there an excess or limitation of references?

Are there major transverse problems, and are there major ethical issues?

Peer review results

It takes into account the aim and scope of the journal and the required knowledge. It is rare for the manuscript to be accepted without any changes or to publish the paper in its original form. In any case, the outcome of the decision will be accompanied by the auditor's reports and some comments from the editor explaining why the decision was reached. If the decision involves an author review, the specific changes required must be clearly stated in the decision letter and review reports. The author must respond to each point separately. There are four possible decisions for auditors: Acceptance with Minor Reviews (Acceptance): The journal will publish the paper and ask the author to make small corrections. Acceptance after major reviews (conditional acceptance): The journal will publish the paper on the condition that the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors. Paper rejection (Full rejection): The journal will not publish or reconsider the paper even if the authors have made major reviews. If your paper was rejected prior to peer review due to an inappropriate topic, find a new journal to submit your work to and move on. If the editor issues an outright refusal and does not wish to reconsider the paper, you must respect that decision and submit it to a different journal. Review and Resubmission (Conditional Rejection): The journal is ready to reconsider the paper in another round of decision-making after the authors make significant changes. Make the recommended changes and resubmit them to the same journal. This option may be the best option if you are keen to publish in a particular journal and if the editor has indicated that they will accept your paper if reviews are made. However, if you receive rejection after reviewing your paper, you will have a rich source of information about potential improvements you can make.

Why the paper rejected?

The editor may reject the paper after conducting some preliminary checks. There are several reasons, including - but not limited to - the paper was stolen, or if the paper is under review in another journal. or if the manuscript is found to be inconsistent with the most important aspects of the author's guidelines for the relevant journal. A manuscript may be rejected if it does not fall within the aims or scope or does not serve the journal's audience, or if the research is of little importance, the results are incremental and do not advance the field significantly. The paper is rejected if the writing is poor, the language and structure are poor, and the editor may reject the paper if the data are incomplete or not clear enough for an initial read. Also, if English is not of a quality that allows for peer review. If the manuscript is incomplete, or the author provides notes only and is not a complete study, or the results relating to some work in this area are not discussed, or if the manuscript ignores important necessary works. If the research question is not significant, the research hypotheses are not specified, or if the author is overly ambitious and unrealistic, and cannot be achieved. If the paper contains flaws in the design, methodology, methods, and data analysis. or when the paper does not contain clear standards or does not conform to common procedures or methodologies that can be replicated. If the statistical analysis is unclear and does not follow the criteria in the same field. The paper may be rejected if the author exaggerates the conclusions and data do not support the conclusions or provide arguments that are illogical, invalid, or disorganized. A paper can be rejected if it is marginal and unimportant, meaning that it is merely an extension of a different research paper, or the work is part of a larger study that has been cut up to make more articles.

Appealing the editorial decision

You can appeal the editor's decision if you feel the editor's or reviewers' decisions were based on an unfair assessment. You have the right to appeal if you have a reasonable response. You must remember that if you think the reviewers are wrong, you are not necessarily right. It is possible that the reviewer was wrong, but it is possible that he could not understand your point because of the lack of clarity in your paper or the absence of some important details. Post your response to each of the reviewer's or editors' comments and provide reasonable explanations.

Copyright, Distribution, and Research Use

Authors should read the license terms before publishing. Read the author's guidelines for your selected journal for details about the journal's copyright. You should know that all articles on Luminous Insights are published under a Creative Commons license that allows you to retain copyright. Read the Open Access Policy, Open access articles are free to read, download and share.

Production Process

Your article goes through several stages before publishing on the Internet, before that make sure that you have clearly marked all the corrections you have made, and that you have made the exact linguistic correction. Make sure that you have answered all questions related to the acknowledgment of the funding support and the acknowledgment of publishing your research in open access articles. We proofread and typeset the article, proofread the style, rules, and remarks to make it look great and then send it to you for the last look before publishing. The article should be carefully reviewed and if there any corrections, clearly mark any corrections, then, we process your corrections. Luminous Insights is introducing an early publishing feature on its PreLum page before it appears in the next official issue. Your Early PreLum article is fully citational and has an online publication history and a DOI for citations. You will receive an email notification when your article is published, you keep the right to free access after accepting the terms and conditions of use to view your article.


Luminous Insights follows best practices to promote your work, and you can also follow appropriate promotion strategies for your research. Maximize the impact of your article by using a unique share link to produce a full-text read and share with unlimited people on websites, academic collaboration networks, and social media.

Make sure you have

registered for an Orchid ID and associated it with your manuscript when submitting. This will ensure that your published article is included in your ORCID registry, and allows organizations, funders, and communities to easily identify you and your research. It also helps not to waste time on repetitive data entry. Luminous Insights uses an Editorial Manager submission system that enables unified login to journal sites using your ORCID to link to a journal account. The ORCID ID is a unique identifier that distinguishes you from any other researcher and connects you to your research activities. Click here to sign in with your ORCID ID, or to register your new ID.