peer Review Guidelines
The journal operates a rigorous double-blind peer review system, ensuring that neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities throughout the evaluation process. Authors are expected to follow the submission guidelines carefully, including compliance with both scientific standards and formatting instructions. Submissions that do not adhere to these requirements may be returned for revision before being considered further.
Only original manuscripts are accepted; submissions must not have been published previously, nor should they be under review in any other journal. The entire submission, review, and production workflow is managed digitally. Each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine suitability with the journal’s aims, scope, and ethical standards. Papers deemed relevant are assigned to independent reviewers based on expertise, research reputation, and absence of conflicts of interest. All communications within the review process are treated as strictly confidential.
Stages of the Peer Review Process
· Editorial Screening: Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor evaluates the manuscript to ensure alignment with the journal’s focus, originality, and compliance with ethical research and writing standards.
· Internal Review: If the manuscript passes the initial check, it may be assessed by members of the Editorial Board. These reviewers examine the relevance of the subject, appropriateness of methods, and validity of results to decide whether the manuscript should proceed to external review. During this stage, reviewer identities remain confidential, and author details are not shared with reviewers.
· External Peer Review: The manuscript is then sent to at least two independent external reviewers with subject expertise. In cases where a direct expert match cannot be identified, qualified scholars in related fields may be invited. Reviewers provide detailed evaluations of the manuscript’s contribution, methodology, and findings, along with a recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection.
If both reviewers recommend acceptance, the manuscript proceeds toward publication with the Editor-in-Chief’s approval. In cases of mixed recommendations, a third reviewer may be invited, and a final decision is made once at least two favorable reviews are secured. Reviewer anonymity is strictly preserved, while the decision-making editor has access to both reviewer and author identities to ensure transparent handling of potential conflicts of interest.
Editorial Decision and Revision
All submissions undergo a double-blind peer review process, with each manuscript receiving at least two independent evaluations. Based on reviewer feedback, the editorial decision will fall into one of the following categories:
- Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted in principle but requires minor changes. Authors are expected to submit a revised version within a short period, typically five working days.
- Reconsider after Major Revisions: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered. Authors must provide a detailed, point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments. Normally, no more than two rounds of major revision are permitted. Revised manuscripts are returned to the same reviewers for further evaluation. If revisions are expected to exceed two months, authors may be advised to withdraw and resubmit later to avoid undue delays.
- Reject with Encouragement to Resubmit: Where additional experiments or significant improvements are needed to support the conclusions, manuscripts may be declined with an invitation to resubmit once the necessary work has been completed.
- Reject: Manuscripts with serious methodological flaws, lack of originality, or insufficient contribution to the field are declined without the option for resubmission.
In all cases, authors are required to respond to reviewer feedback in a structured, point-by-point manner. Where authors disagree with reviewer comments, clear justifications must be provided.
Duration of the Review Process
The review process generally takes two to three months, depending on reviewer responsiveness. Where reviews are delayed or conflicting, additional expert opinions may be sought. In exceptional cases—such as when securing a second referee proves difficult—the Editor may base a decision on a single, comprehensive report if deemed sufficiently robust.
Decisions, together with reviewers’ recommendations and selected verbatim comments, are communicated directly to authors. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review by the original referees if necessary. While reviewers provide expert guidance, the final authority rests with the Editor, who ensures that decisions are fair, balanced, and consistent with the journal’s editorial standards.
Becoming a referee: If you would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the editorial office at enquiry@scirojournals.org
Complaints Policy
The journal is committed to addressing all complaints in a fair, transparent, and timely manner. Our procedures are designed to ensure that concerns raised by authors, reviewers, or readers are handled constructively while safeguarding the integrity of the editorial process.
· Appeals Against Editorial Decisions: Authors who disagree with an editorial decision retain the right to appeal. Appeals should be submitted directly to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will conduct a thorough reassessment of the manuscript, including consideration of reviewer comments and the editorial rationale. If deemed necessary, the manuscript may be reassigned to a different handling editor for independent evaluation. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision on such appeals is regarded as final.
· Complaints About Policies, Procedures, or Conduct: Complaints related to editorial policies, journal procedures, published content, or the conduct of editorial staff should be submitted in writing to the editorial office. The complaint will be acknowledged within six working days and directed to the most appropriate senior editorial representative for review. If required, the matter may be escalated to the Editor-in-Chief.
· Resolution and Communication: Every effort will be made to resolve complaints promptly. In situations requiring consultation with external parties, additional time may be necessary; in such cases, the complainant will receive regular updates (at least once every two weeks) until the matter is resolved. Final decisions regarding complaints rest with the Editor-in-Chief to ensure impartiality and consistency in the process.
