Sign inSubmit

Peer review process

The office screens every manuscript first, against criteria each editor-in-chief sets. Those sent for review get single-anonymised review by experts the handling editor invites; the decision needs at least two reviews and always comes with reasons.

Submit a manuscript
  1. 1 · AuthorSubmissionAny format; the details are read from the file.
  2. 2 · OfficeScreeningScope, similarity and completeness, within 3 days, against criteria each editor-in-chief sets.
  3. 3 · Editor-in-chiefEditor assignedAssigns a handling editor, who accepts within 5 days.
  4. 4 · Handling editorPeer reviewAt least three reviewers invited; reviews are due 21 days after the invitation.
  5. 5 · Handling editorDecisionNeeds at least two reviews; within 7 days of the last one, always with reasons.
  6. 6 · AuthorRevisionThe revised file and a response to each comment: within 14 days for a minor revision, 42 for a major one.
  7. 7 · Editor and officeAcceptanceThe editor accepts; the office issues the tax invoice within two working days. Nothing is paid before this.
  8. 8 · AuthorPaymentThe invoice total, with 5% VAT, due within 7 days. Production starts once it is paid.
  9. 9 · ProductionProductionLight editing, typesetting and the final checks.
  10. 10 · AuthorProof and publicationApprove within 7 days; approving publishes the article at once.

Other outcomes

  • Office · at screeningReturned for correctionsCorrections are due within 14 days; screening then continues.
  • Office · at screeningRejected at screeningOutside the scope or below the standard, with reasons; a better-suited journal may be offered instead. It can be appealed from the manuscript page.
  • Handling editorRejected after reviewWith the reports and reasons. The editor may offer a transfer to another of our journals: answer within 14 days, or the rejection stands. It can be appealed from the manuscript page.

How long each step takes

3 dScreening
5 dEditor accepts the assignment
21 dReviews due, from the invitation
7 dDecision after the last review
14 / 42 dRevision, minor / major
7 dYour proof

A reminder goes 7 days before a revision is due. Each journal’s Metrics page shows its measured times over the last 12 months: the median days to a first decision and to publication.

The policy

The peer review process is an essential element of the publication cycle. Every manuscript that passes screening is peer reviewed: the handling editor invites at least three reviewers, and a decision needs at least two completed reviews. Following is the editorial workflow that all submitted manuscripts undergo.

Initial Evaluation

All manuscripts are processed using Science Publications' in-house Manuscript Tracking System. Once we receive a manuscript, our Editorial Office runs a plagiarism check and screens the manuscript to decide whether or not it should be sent for peer review. It is therefore very important for authors to make sure that their manuscript is well written and is of high quality. During the initial screening, our Editorial Office mainly checks the following:

  1. Does the manuscript fit the journal’s scope?
  2. Is the content of the manuscript is good enough to make it worth reviewing?
  3. Is the manuscript compliant with the journal’s Instructions for Authors?
  4. Has the manuscript been submitted or published elsewhere?

The office checks each new manuscript for scope, similarity and completeness against criteria each editor-in-chief sets, and may return it for corrections or reject it at screening; every other decision is the editors’. A rejection at screening can be appealed from the manuscript page.

Peer Review

After a manuscript clears screening, the editor-in-chief assigns it to a handling editor, who invites at least three reviewers. Reviewers submit their reports with one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept
  2. Minor Revision
  3. Major Revision
  4. Reject & Resubmit
  5. Reject

Peer review is single-anonymised: reviewers know who the authors are. Reviewers’ names are never shown to authors. All our journals acknowledge the researchers who have performed the peer-review and without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible. We try our best to adhere to the guidelines laid out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also forward the guidelines to our reviewers to ensure the highest ethical standards of evaluation.

Final Decision

A decision needs at least two completed reviews. The handling editor makes the decision and sends the letter with the reports; the editor-in-chief can be consulted.

If the manuscript is conditionally accepted, authors will be required to revise their manuscript according to the Editor’s suggestions and submit a revised version of their manuscript for further evaluation.

Our Editorial Workflow allows editors to reject manuscripts due to a number of reasons including inappropriateness of the subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of the results. We ensure high quality and unbiased peer-review by sending the manuscript for evaluation to a range of reviewers in different parts of the world.

Complaints

If authors are unhappy with any part of the publication process, they may write to [email protected]. The Editorial Office will address complaints regarding the journal’s policies and procedures and may forward the complaint to the respective journal’s Editorial Board, if required.

To appeal a rejection, use “Appeal this decision” on your manuscript page within 30 days: see Appeals and complaints.