Sciencelet

For authors

Peer review policy

This policy outlines the peer review process, which is designed to ensure the scientific rigor, quality, and integrity of the articles published in our journals. Our peer review process is aligned with principles advocated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Peer Review Model

We operate a single-blind peer review process. This means that:

  • The reviewers are aware of the identity of the authors.
  • The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

This model is intended to encourage candid, unbiased evaluations from reviewers while allowing editors to select the most qualified experts in the specific research area.

The Review Process

The review process typically follows these stages:

  1. Initial screening: The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor evaluates the submission for basic suitability, checking if it fits the journal scope, meets submission requirements, and shows sufficient originality.
  2. External review: Manuscripts passing the initial screen are assigned to at least two independent external experts for peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, objectivity, and lack of conflict of interest.
  3. Evaluation: Reviewers assess the research design, methodology, clarity of presentation, ethical considerations, and validity of conclusions.
  4. Editorial decision:The handling editor makes a decision (Accept, Revision Requested, or Reject) based on the reviewers' reports and recommendations.

Reviewer Ethics & Confidentiality

Reviewers are expected to treat the manuscript and all related materials as strictly confidential. They must not disclose information about the manuscript, use the unpublished ideas for their own work, or contact the authors directly. Any potential conflicts of interest (financial, personal, or collaborative) must be declared to the editors immediately.

Author Responsibilities

Authors must present their work transparently and respond constructively to reviewer comments during revisions. Revisions should be accompanied by a detailed response to reviewer concerns.

For more information on authorship requirements and guidelines, see our submission guidelines.