The peer review process is a critical component of scholarly publishing, as it ensures that the articles published in a journal meet the highest standards of academic quality and integrity. Here's a brief overview of the peer review process for our journal:
Submission: The author submits their manuscript to the journal for consideration.
Editorial Assessment: The editor-in-chief or a designated editor first evaluates the manuscript to ensure that it meets the journal's scope and standards. If it does not meet the criteria, the manuscript may be rejected at this stage.
Reviewer Assignment: If the manuscript passes the initial editorial assessment, the editor-in-chief or a designated editor will assign the manuscript to two or more external reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field. The reviewers are usually selected based on their experience and research interests.
Peer Review: The external reviewers carefully evaluate the manuscript and provide feedback on its strengths and weaknesses, the accuracy of its research methods and results, and the clarity and coherence of its argument. The reviewers then make a recommendation to the editor regarding whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
Author Revision: If the manuscript requires revisions, the author is given a specific timeline to address the feedback provided by the reviewers and resubmit the manuscript.
Final Decision: After the author has made revisions, the manuscript is re-evaluated by the editor and the reviewers to ensure that the revisions have been adequately addressed. Based on this evaluation, the editor will make a final decision to either accept, reject, or request further revisions of the manuscript.
It's important to note that the peer review process is double-blind, which means that the identities of the reviewers and authors are kept confidential from each other. This ensures that the review process remains objective and unbiased.