Hill Publishing Group | contact@hillpublisher.com

Hill Publishing Group

  • For Authors
  • For Reviewers
  • Ethics
  • Editorial Policy
  • Join Us

Before You Start

Before submitting your manuscript, please verify that the format meets the requirements of your target journal.

When the format requirements of the target journal have been met, then check the manuscript according to the checklist. When you are ready to submit, please send your papers.

Peer Review Process

When the editorial office receives a new submission, the manuscript is given an identification number. The editorial staff then performs an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its topical relevance, adherence to the formatting guidelines, and absence of plagiarism in both textual and scientific content.

If the manuscript passes this initial assessment, it is forwarded to an Associate Editor with appropriate expertise in the subject area or study design. The Associate Editor is responsible for identifying at least 2 external peer reviewers with expertise in the topic or specialty of the paper. The peer review process may require 2 to 4 weeks before the decision is reached. The authors then revise the paper, as needed, based on the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

After the authors submit their revision, the manuscript undergoes another peer-review, or it will be sent to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision, if appropriate. If the paper is accepted, the preparation stage for publication then begins.

After Acceptance

When a manuscript is accepted, the author must sign a license to publish that will allow HillPub to publish the article. The article is then sent for copyediting, after which the author is asked to confirm the copyedited paper. The confirmed paper is entered online for publishing in advance, and at the same time, the paper is typeset. The author is asked to confirm the typeset PDF to ensure that there are no errors. The final PDF is then entered online.

English Language Editing

·Editors with a research in your subject

·Standard service and additionally corrects logic and structure gaps

·Free re-editing or a money-back guarantee if rejected for language-quality

For this service, please send emails to: contact@hillpublishing.org.

After Publication

The articles will be published in PDF and HTML format. The PDF that is available online is exactly the same as the printed hardcopy. All accepted papers will be published online and in printed forms. All the accepted papers of the journals will be processed for indexing into different citation databases that track citation frequency/data for each paper.

Author Responsibilities

Reporting Standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behavior and is never acceptable. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others used in a research project must always be given. Further, it is the obligation of each author to provide prompt retractions or corrections of errors in published works.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Publication and Authorship Practices

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors. The sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as coauthors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All co-authors must be clearly indicated at the time of manuscript submission. Requests to add co-authors after a manuscript has been accepted will require approval of the editor.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that has any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author(s) must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Additionally, manuscripts should adhere to the principles of the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki regarding research study involving human or animal subjects.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

There are many professional activities of physicists that have the potential for a conflict of interest. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. It should be recognized that honest error is an integral part of the scientific enterprise. It is not unethical to be wrong, provided that errors are promptly acknowledged and corrected when they are detected.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate correction statement or erratum.

Instructions for reviewers

Objectives of Peer Review

The objective of peer review is to provide constructive but rigorous encouragement regarding the scientific content and English language quality of a report. All comments and suggestions of our peer reviewers are given in a respectful tone, and returned to the journal’s editorial office in a timely manner. Peer reviewers also help to ensure the ethical integrity of each manuscript, by pointing out any suspected or identified cases of plagiarism, either scientific or textual, in whole or in part.

Evaluation Criteria

Specifically, reviewers should consider whether all submissions adhere to the six criteria for educational scholarship defined below (Glassick et al., 1997) and are generalizable in nature (i.e., the materials can be implemented at another institution without additional effort, cost, or explanation).

Specifically, reviewers should consider whether all submissions adhere to the six criteria for educational scholarship defined below (Glassick et al., 1997) and are generalizable in nature (i.e., the materials can be implemented at another institution without additional effort, cost, or explanation).


The author explicitly states the educational objectives of the work from the perspective of the target audience; the objectives are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, and Realistic.


The author uses prior work (e.g., existing scholarship and personal experience) to inform and develop the work.


The author uses a suitable approach to meet the stated educational objectives of the work.


The author achieves the goals and contributes substantially to others (e.g., learners, colleagues) and to the field in a manner that invites others to use the work.


The author effectively organizes and presents the work sufficiently clearly that others can easily emulate/use and build upon it.


The author thoughtfully assesses the work and uses review/critique from other sources to refine, enhance, or expand the original concept.

Reviewer Responsibilities

All reviewers at least are Ph.D. holder. Reviewers must commit to being timely, fair and professional in conducting their reviews. Each reviewer will receive electronic access to article submissions in the HPG journals and they will need to complete on-line evaluations. They are barred from reviewing articles submitted by professional colleagues employed by the same organization. HPG journals’ reviewer review at least 1 paper/issue relevant to his/her area and post call for papers to relevant websites. Also it is expected that he/she must refer more reviewers.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.


Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Reviewers should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation.

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Why Us?
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Search engine friendly
  • - Open Access
  • - More citations
  • - Free promotion service
Free HPG Newsletters

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from Hill Publishing Group.

Contact us

Hill Publishing Group

8825 53rd Ave

Elmhurst, NY 11373, USA

E-mail: contact@hillpublisher.com

Copyright © 2019 Hill Publishing Group Inc. All Rights Reserved.