Editorial Board

Author Guidelines

• The case should be typed in MS Word.
• Title of the case should be followed by name, e-mail, and affiliation of author(s).
• The case study should be accompanied with a declaration that it is the original work of the author(s) and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere.
• If the case study was presented/submitted at a conference/seminar, details must be clearly mentioned, and the author should specify with whom the copyright rests.
• It is the responsibility of the authors to obtain permission for reproduction of figures, tables, etc., from published sources.
• The authors should adhere to the ethical standards as described on this website while submitting the paper.
• Authors should submit a copyright declaration form along with the manuscript.
• Categories of Manuscripts:
  • Case Study: Must include:
    • An abstract (max 120 words) and five keywords
    • Introduction—background information of the company/person/situation
    • Context and main issue being addressed
    • Case background
    • Problem statement and its analysis
    • Solutions/alternatives
    • Implementation
    • Results/outcome of implementation of solution
    • Lessons learned and conclusion
    • References and appendices
    • Tables and figures should be numbered serially and appear in the document near/after where they are referred to in the text.
  • Caselet: A shorter version of a case study:
    • All information embedded within the text
    • Scenario with facts, figures/events but no data in tables/charts
    • Meant for testing analytical skills of the reader
  • Book Review:
    • It should present the summary of the contents of the book not exceeding 2 typeset pages
    • Include book details and a few lines about the author
    • Include an image of the book’s cover page
• References:
  • Complete list of references cited in the text must be provided
  • In-text citations should follow the format: Haggerty and Ericson (2000) describe…
  • Reference list should be in APA style, for example:
    • Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622.
    • Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.
• All case studies are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. Unsuitable ones will be returned to the author.
• Others will go through a double-blind peer review process by subject experts.
• Authors will be informed about acceptance, revision, or rejection of the paper.
• To ensure anonymity, author’s details should appear only on the first page with the title and should not be repeated elsewhere.

• Manuscripts should be addressed to:
  The Editor-in-Chief
  Case Folio
  IUP Publications
  (A Division of The ICFAI Society)
  # 52, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta
  Hyderabad 500082, Telangana, India
  Tel: +91 9052294946
• Manuscripts of all categories are to be submitted online to:
  casefolio@iupindia.in ; info@iupindia.in or directly uploaded to the respective Journal at: www.iupindia.in

IUP Publications: Publication Ethics

We observe ethical standards in publishing papers received from authors so as to ensure that we publish high quality papers in our journals. Our statement of publication ethics is essentially based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practices Guidelines prescribed by the Editors Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Paper Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief. of the Journal is prima facie responsible for selection of papers for publication in the Journal. The Editor-in-Chief. will evaluate the manuscript without any consideration for the author's race, gender, religious belief, citizenship, or political identity but essentially focusing on the originality, clarity, validity, importance of the research undertaken and its relevance to the scope of the Journal.

Plagiarism: The paper is then checked for plagiarism to ensure no idea, data or figures, words are used without proper citation. Wherever reuse of the published wordings is effected even with proper citation, it must be limited. Manuscripts found to be plagiarised are straightaway rejected. Whenever such objections come to light after publication, publishers in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief shall effect necessary amendments or even retract such papers.

The Editor-in-Chief will then seek opinion of two referees by mailing the paper to them without revealing the identity and affiliation of the author/s.

Referees' Responsibility: On receipt of the paper, if the referee feels that he/she is not qualified enough to assess the research under reference, the paper shall be returned to the Editor-in-Chief with the said remarks.

The chosen referee must review the paper objectively and convey his/her opinion on the paper duly supported by arguments. Any similarities with the already published papers have to be brought to the notice of the Editor-in-Chief. Similarly, any omissions in citing the relevant literature may also be notified.

Referees must maintain strict confidentiality about the ideas evaluated/discussed in the paper and should not be used for personal advantage.

They should also not review a paper that comes in conflict with their personal interests.

Once accepted to review a paper, the referee should promptly complete the task and convey his/her opinion about its suitability or otherwise for publication in the Journal in the prescribed format to the Editor-in-Chief.

Based on the twin reports of the blind-review, the Editor-in-Chief shall correspond with the author/s for appropriate modifications/corrections, if any required, in the manuscript and again seek the opinion of the referees on the said modifications affected by the authors. Based on the concurrence of the referees, the Editor-in-Chief may accept the paper for publication. Accordingly, a communication may be given to the author/s.

The authors shall be provided with the edited proof before releasing for publication seeking their approval of the final version.

Duties of Authors

Authorship to be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, execution and interpretation of the results of the reported study. All the support received from other agencies for carrying out the research must be properly acknowledged.

The corresponding author must ensure that all the co-authors have seen the paper and approved its submission for publication and must give an undertaking to this effect.

Authors of the papers reporting the results of their original research should present an accurate description of their work duly supported by relevant data. They must present detailed references of the relevant literature. They have to provide questionnaire etc., used for collecting the data and authorise the publisher to make such material available to the readers.

Authors are not to send papers for publication which are already under consideration with other journals.

Authors should give declaration to the Publisher to the effect that the paper submitted for publication is based on their original research and they hold the copyright.

Authors must declare that there is no conflict of interest influencing the results of the study.

In the event of identifying a significant error or inaccuracy in a published paper, it is the author's obligation to bring it to the notice of the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal or Publisher and assist them to do the needful correction/publish an appropriate erratum.

Duties of Publisher

Publisher of the Journal shall not discriminate on the basis of author's race, gender, religious belief, citizenship, or political identity in its publication services/activities.

It shall not charge any fees from the author/s for publishing the papers.

In the event of any proven case of scientific misconduct or fraudulent publication or plagiarism, it shall, in close collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief., take appropriate action to correct the situation and if need be, even retract the so affected paper.

Duplication of publication, once noticed, such papers shall be withdrawn immediately from the Journal site with appropriate notification.

Dispute regarding authorship/ownership of data, if any, received, such allegations shall be examined immediately and fairly, and corrective action shall be taken, including removal of such paper from the Journal site with proper notification.

IUP Publications: Peer Review Process

Our Double-Blind Referral Process

Peer review is nothing but subjecting an author's paper to the scrutiny of a fellow expert in the said field. This aids the Journal in two ways: One, facilitates authors to identify errors, if any in the manuscript, and their correction before publication and two, aids the Journal in publishing papers of standard quality that indeed contribute something additional to the existing literature.

Overview of Review Process

Once a manuscript is received from an author, it will be checked by the Editor-in-Chief. of the Journal to ensure that its subject matter falls in line with that of the Journal and that it fits with the overall philosophy of the Journal. On the other hand, if he finds that the paper has no new science/references are not up-to-date/inferences are not apparently supported by experimental data, etc., the Editor-in-Chief may reject the paper.

Once satisfied of these facts and observes that the manuscript is from a credible source, Editor-in-Chief will arrange to mail the manuscript to two referees who are known as accomplished researchers in the fields to which the paper belongs for their scrutiny. Authorship details of the paper such as name/s of author/s, institutional affiliation, etc., are deleted before the papers are mailed to the referees.

On examining the paper, the reviewers may recommend it for publication/ rejection/suggest modifications/corrections. Editor-in-Chief will forward all such comments to the authors for their compliance. On receipt of the revised/modified manuscript, it will again be sent to the referees for approval.

If the authors have a contradictory opinion on the comments of the referee, they are free to communicate the same to Editor-in-Chief, who in turn, will transmit them for the referees' examination. In any case, the Journal goes by the final verdict of the referees.

On both the reviewers recommending the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief will forward it for layout and subject it to the normal in-house editorial process. Finally, the edited and print-ready copy of the paper will be sent to the author/s for their approval. On receipt of their acceptance, the paper will be released for publication in the Journal.

On the other hand, if the referees recommend for its rejection, the paper will be returned with a regret note to the author/s. In the event of any conflict in the recommendations of the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief, depending on the nature of the underlying reasons and their credibility, either will decide acceptance/acceptance on modification on his own or may prefer to call for the opinion of a third expert to accept or reject its publication.

In this whole process, the anonymity of the referees is religiously guarded.

The Journal ensures that the review process is timely and fair. To ensure speedy review, Editor-in-Chief strives to maintain a panel of referees who are known to have specialized knowledge in the discipline/more general knowledge base, preferably young scholars who are generally perceived to be willing to undertake such reviews. He would also ensure that no conflict of interest creeps into the review process.

Reviewer's Role

Once the manuscript is received from the Journal, the referee would confirm to himself that the content of the paper falls within his competency to review and then examine the originality of the research question examined, its context in terms of current literature, appropriateness of experimental design, the correctness of inferences drawn and readability of the presentation. If there are any missing links, he may suggest modifications to the manuscript/improvement in the experimentation, etc.

Speedy Completion of Review Process

Editor-in-Chief attempts to complete the review process speedily but many a time it solely rests on the cooperation of the reviewer. So, authors need to note that it is a collaborative venture and hence any delay may be pardoned in the right spirit.

Similarly, authors are requested to cooperate in making the amendments to the manuscript as suggested by the referees and return the manuscript speedily and also bear with the process delay, if any, once in a while.