Peer Review Policy

1. Overview of Peer Review Process:

  • Double-Blind Peer Review: Scientific Research Reports (SRR) follows a double-blind peer review process, in which both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation process. This ensures impartiality and minimizes bias.
  • External Reviewers: Submitted manuscripts are evaluated by two or more independent experts in the field of the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic standing, and relevance to the manuscript’s content.

2. Submission Evaluation:

  • Initial Screening: Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript fits within the scope of the journal, adheres to submission guidelines, and meets basic academic quality standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected before peer review.
  • Peer Review Invitation: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, the editorial team invites relevant reviewers. The reviewers are given access to the manuscript and asked to provide their comments and recommendations on its quality, originality, relevance, and rigor.
  • Reviewer Criteria: Reviewers must have expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript and a strong academic background. They are selected based on their knowledge, experience, and ability to provide constructive feedback.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Objective Evaluation: Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide feedback based on academic merit, scientific rigor, and clarity of presentation. All reviews should be constructive, respectful, and focused on improving the quality of the manuscript.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. They should not share, discuss, or disclose any information from the manuscript to unauthorized parties.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are required to provide their feedback within a specified time frame, typically within 2-3 weeks. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review on time, they should notify the editorial team promptly.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide detailed, actionable suggestions to help authors improve their manuscripts. Feedback should address the research quality, methodology, analysis, and clarity of writing.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, including personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors or the manuscript’s content. If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should recuse themselves from the review process.

4. Author Responsibilities:

  • Revisions: If revisions are requested by the reviewers, authors are required to make the necessary changes and submit a revised version of the manuscript. Authors must also provide a detailed response to each reviewer's comment, explaining how each concern was addressed in the revision.
  • Timeliness: Authors must respond to reviewer comments and submit revised manuscripts within the specified deadlines. Delays may lead to the rejection of the manuscript.
  • Plagiarism and Originality: Authors must ensure that their manuscript is free from plagiarism and that all sources are properly cited. The manuscript must present original work that has not been previously published or is under consideration elsewhere.
  • Conflict of Interest: Authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest during the submission process. This includes financial, professional, or personal relationships that may affect the manuscript's evaluation.

5. Ethical Considerations:

  • Plagiarism Detection: All manuscripts submitted to SRR are screened for plagiarism using industry-standard software. Manuscripts found to contain significant similarities with previously published work will be rejected.
  • Ethical Conduct in Research: Authors must adhere to ethical standards in the conduct of their research. This includes obtaining necessary ethical approvals for research involving human participants or animals, ensuring informed consent, and disclosing any potential biases or conflicts in the research process.
  • Data Integrity: Authors must present accurate, verifiable data in their manuscripts. Falsification or manipulation of data is grounds for rejection, and serious cases may be reported to the relevant academic or institutional authorities.

6. Decision-Making:

  • Editor’s Decision: Based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
    • Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's standards and is accepted for publication without significant revisions.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes, but overall it meets the journal’s standards. The manuscript may be accepted after the author addresses the reviewers’ comments.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication. The manuscript may be sent back to the reviewers after the author revises it.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards, and publication is not recommended.
  • Final Decision: The final decision on the manuscript’s publication rests with the editorial team, who will consider reviewer feedback, the manuscript’s academic merit, and its alignment with the journal’s scope.

7. Appeal Process:

  • Appeals: Authors who disagree with the editorial decision have the right to appeal. Appeals should be submitted in writing and provide a clear justification for why the decision should be reconsidered. The editorial board will review the appeal and make a final decision based on the academic merit of the manuscript and the reviewer comments.

8. Review Process Duration:

  • The typical peer review process takes 4-6 weeks from submission to final decision. This timeline may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.

9. Transparency:

  • Open Peer Review (Optional): At the discretion of the authors and reviewers, SRR may implement an open peer review process in which both the identities of the authors and reviewers are disclosed. This practice is optional and will be indicated at the time of submission.
  • Transparency in Review: SRR strives for transparency in the review process. Author feedback, reviewer comments, and the editor’s decision will be shared with authors to provide clarity and facilitate further revisions.