SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL (ISSN 3107-4162) follows a structured and impartial peer-review process designed to ensure the scientific quality, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance of every manuscript considered for publication. The journal aims to provide authors with constructive feedback while maintaining confidentiality and editorial independence throughout the review process.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All manuscripts submitted to SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL are first examined by the editorial office to determine whether they comply with the journal’s submission requirements and fall within its aims and scope.
During the initial assessment, the editors may consider:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope and readership.
- Originality and potential scholarly contribution.
- Compliance with manuscript preparation requirements.
- Clarity and completeness of the submission.
- Ethical requirements and declarations.
- Authorship and conflict-of-interest information.
- Possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text reuse.
- Quality of figures, tables, references, and supporting information.
Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal’s scope, do not meet essential submission requirements, or raise serious ethical or scientific concerns may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.
2. Assignment to an Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate editor based on the subject area and expertise required to evaluate the work. Editors are expected to make decisions independently and objectively and must declare any conflict of interest.
An editor who has a personal, professional, academic, financial, or institutional conflict with the authors or manuscript should not participate in the editorial decision.
3. Selection of Peer Reviewers
The responsible editor identifies qualified reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic or professional expertise, relevant research experience, and ability to provide an objective assessment.
Reviewers should not be selected when they have a significant conflict of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the research. Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflict before accepting an invitation.
The journal may use reviewers from different institutions and geographical regions to support independent and balanced evaluation.
4. Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL are treated as confidential documents during the peer-review process. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, or discuss the manuscript or its contents with unauthorized individuals.
Unpublished information, data, ideas, methods, or findings obtained through peer review must not be used by reviewers for personal, academic, or professional advantage.
Editors and editorial staff are likewise responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and reviewer reports.
5. Evaluation by Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to provide a careful, objective, constructive, and scientifically reasoned assessment. The review should help the editor determine whether the manuscript meets the journal’s standards and should also assist authors in improving their work.
Depending on the article type, reviewers may consider:
- Originality and significance of the work.
- Clarity of the research question or objectives.
- Appropriateness of the study design and methodology.
- Quality and reliability of data.
- Appropriateness of statistical or analytical methods.
- Clarity of results and interpretation.
- Relationship of the work to existing literature.
- Adequacy and relevance of references.
- Logical organization and scientific presentation.
- Ethical approval and informed-consent requirements where applicable.
- Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other publication-ethics concerns.
- Whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence.
Reviewers should distinguish between major scientific concerns and minor editorial or presentation issues.
6. Reviewer’s Recommendation
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide comments to the editor and may recommend one of the following outcomes:
- Accept — The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minimal changes.
- Minor Revision — The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited corrections or clarification.
- Major Revision — Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be considered further.
- Reject — The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, methodological, or scope requirements.
A reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the responsible editor.
7. Revision by Authors
When revisions are requested, authors should respond carefully to all editorial and reviewer comments. A revised manuscript should clearly indicate the changes made and provide a response explaining how each substantive comment was addressed.
Where an author disagrees with a reviewer’s suggestion, the author may provide a clear scientific justification for the decision not to make the requested change. Editors may request additional clarification when necessary.
8. Further Review
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Additional review may be required when substantial methodological, ethical, statistical, or scientific issues remain unresolved.
The editor may request more than one round of revision when necessary to reach a fair and well-supported decision.
9. Editorial Decision
Following peer review and consideration of the authors’ responses, the editor makes the final decision regarding publication. Editorial decisions are based on the overall quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and contribution of the manuscript.
Peer-review recommendations are considered carefully but do not automatically determine the final outcome.
10. Ethical Concerns During Review
Reviewers and editors should promptly notify the editorial office of credible concerns relating to plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulated images, or other forms of research or publication misconduct.
Where necessary, the journal may request explanations or supporting documentation from the authors and may refer serious concerns to the relevant institution or appropriate authority.
11. Appeals
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant misunderstanding, procedural error, or overlooked scientific information may submit an appeal to the editorial office.
An appeal should provide a clear and reasoned explanation of the grounds for reconsideration. Appeals are considered independently and are not guaranteed to result in reversal of the original decision.
12. Commitment to Fair and Responsible Peer Review
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL (ISSN 3107-4162) is committed to maintaining a peer-review system based on fairness, confidentiality, objectivity, transparency, academic independence, and research integrity. The journal expects editors, reviewers, and authors to act professionally and respectfully throughout the publication process.
The purpose of peer review is not only to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication, but also to strengthen the quality, reliability, clarity, and scholarly value of published research.
