Peer Review Process

Estimated publication time (Max. 3 months):

  • Initial Evaluation by Editor: Maximum 7 days since manuscript submission.
  • Review Process: Maximum 30 days since manuscript submission.
  • Publication: For eligible manuscripts, publication will be done no later than 3 months since submission.

This process involves the evaluation of submitted manuscripts by experts in the field before publication. In this article, we present a comprehensive peer-review process for an online journal system.

Submission and Initial Screening:

  • Authors submit their manuscripts through the online journal system.
  • The editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope, guidelines, and formatting requirements.
  • Submissions that do not meet the initial criteria are returned to the authors with appropriate feedback.

Selection of Reviewers:

  • The editor-in-chief or assigned editors select appropriate reviewers based on their expertise and knowledge in the subject area.
  • Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors or the manuscript under review.
  • Reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript within a specified timeframe, usually 2-4 weeks.

Reviewer Evaluation:

  • Reviewers thoroughly evaluate the manuscript, focusing on its scientific merit, originality, methodology, clarity, and significance.
  • Reviewers provide comments, suggestions, and constructive criticisms to improve the manuscript.
  • Reviewers also assess the manuscript’s compliance with ethical guidelines and research standards.
  • The review process is conducted anonymously.

Reviewer Recommendations:

Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:
a) Acceptance without revisions.
b) Acceptance with minor revisions.
c) Major revisions required.
d) Rejection.

Author Revision:

  • If revisions are requested, authors receive the reviewers’ comments and recommendations.
  • Authors revise the manuscript accordingly, addressing each point raised by the reviewers.
  • Authors may also submit a point-by-point response to address the reviewers' comments.

Reviewer Re-evaluation:

  • Revised manuscripts are sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
  • Reviewers assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the initial concerns and suggestions.
  • Reviewers provide a recommendation based on the revised version.

Editor's Decision:

The editor-in-chief or assigned editors consider the reviewers' recommendations and make the final decision:
a) Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication.
b) Acceptance with revisions: Minor revisions are requested before final acceptance.
c) Major revisions required: The manuscript requires significant revisions and another round of review.
d) Rejection: The manuscript is rejected for publication.

Communication with Authors:

  • The editor-in-chief or assigned editors communicate the decision to the authors.
  • If revisions are required, authors receive the reviewers' comments and recommendations.
  • Authors are given a specific timeframe to complete the revisions.

Final Evaluation:

  • Revised manuscripts are assessed by the editor-in-chief or assigned editors to ensure that all revisions have been addressed adequately.

Publication:

  • Accepted manuscripts are published in the online journal system, either immediately or according to the journal’s publication schedule.
  • Authors are notified when their articles are officially published.

Implementing a rigorous peer-review process in an online journal system ensures the quality and credibility of published articles. This process includes initial screening, expert reviewer evaluation, author revision, and final decision-making by the editor-in-chief or assigned editors. Effective communication between reviewers, authors, and editors is crucial to providing constructive feedback and improving the overall quality of scholarly publications.