Effective Date: August 2026
1. Purpose and Scope
Scientific Publications is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and academically independent peer-review process for journals published by the organization.
This policy establishes publisher-wide principles for peer review. Individual journals may adopt additional procedures according to their discipline, manuscript types, and editorial requirements.
2. Purpose of Peer Review
Peer review is used to support the quality, validity, originality, relevance, and scholarly integrity of research published by journals of Scientific Publications.
Peer review is intended to provide independent scholarly assessment and constructive feedback to authors while supporting sound editorial decision-making.
3. Initial Editorial Assessment
Submitted manuscripts may undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.
The initial assessment may consider:
- relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
- originality and scholarly contribution;
- methodological quality;
- completeness of the submission;
- compliance with journal policies and author guidelines;
- ethical requirements; and
- potential conflicts of interest or other concerns.
A manuscript may be declined at the initial assessment stage when it is unsuitable for the journal or does not meet the journal’s basic editorial or ethical requirements.
4. Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected according to their relevant academic or professional expertise and suitability for the subject matter of the manuscript.
Editors may consider:
- subject expertise;
- research experience;
- relevant publication record;
- methodological knowledge;
- availability to complete the review; and
- potential conflicts of interest.
Where practicable, reviewers with appropriate independence from the authors and their institutions should be selected.
5. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- provide objective and constructive evaluations;
- assess the manuscript according to the relevant journal’s criteria;
- evaluate the scientific quality and methodological soundness of the work;
- identify significant omissions, weaknesses, or unsupported conclusions;
- identify relevant published work where appropriate;
- maintain confidentiality;
- disclose potential conflicts of interest; and
- complete reviews within the agreed timeframe where possible.
Reviewers should not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
6. Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers and editorial participants must not disclose manuscript content, review discussions, or editorial decisions to unauthorized individuals.
The confidentiality of the peer-review process should be maintained unless disclosure is required by applicable law or by an approved publication-ethics procedure.
7. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should decline a review assignment when an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest could compromise their impartiality.
Potential conflicts may include:
- recent collaboration with an author;
- close personal or professional relationships;
- direct competition involving the research;
- financial interests;
- institutional relationships that may affect impartiality; or
- other circumstances that could reasonably influence the review.
Editors are responsible for taking appropriate action when a conflict is identified.
8. Peer-Review Models
The exact peer-review model may differ among journals published by Scientific Publications.
A journal may use single-anonymous, double-anonymous, open, or another appropriate peer-review model according to its published journal policy.
The relevant journal website and author guidelines should clearly state the peer-review model applicable to that journal.
9. Editorial Decision-Making
Peer-review reports are considered together with the editor’s independent assessment of the manuscript.
Possible editorial decisions may include:
- accept;
- minor revision;
- major revision;
- reject; or
- another decision permitted by the journal’s editorial procedures.
A manuscript is not accepted solely because a reviewer recommends acceptance, and a recommendation for rejection does not automatically determine the final editorial decision.
Editors remain responsible for the final editorial decision.
10. Reviewer Recommendations and Multiple Reviews
Where appropriate, manuscripts may be evaluated by more than one reviewer.
When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review, request clarification, or make an independent editorial decision based on the available evidence.
The number of reviewers may vary according to manuscript type, subject area, journal policy, and editorial requirements.
11. Review of Revisions
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
Editors may also evaluate minor revisions without seeking an additional external review when appropriate.
12. Peer Review and Editorial Board Members
When an editor, editorial board member, or other individual closely associated with a journal submits a manuscript to that journal, appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that the manuscript receives independent editorial assessment and peer review.
The submitting editor or board member should not participate in decisions concerning their own manuscript.
13. Appeals and Reconsideration
Authors may raise legitimate concerns about editorial or peer-review decisions according to the procedures established by the relevant journal.
Appeals should provide a clear scholarly or procedural basis for reconsideration.
Appeals are reviewed objectively and should not result in retaliation against authors.
14. Peer-Review Misconduct
Scientific Publications does not tolerate manipulation or abuse of the peer-review process.
Concerns may include:
- fabricated reviewer identities;
- fraudulent peer-review reports;
- undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- inappropriate attempts to influence reviewers;
- review plagiarism; or
- other conduct that may compromise the integrity of peer review.
Suspected peer-review misconduct may be investigated by the appropriate editor and/or publisher representative in accordance with applicable publication-ethics procedures.
15. Relationship Between Peer Review and Publication Charges
Peer-review and editorial decisions are independent of Article Processing Charges and other publication-related payments.
Payment or willingness to pay an APC does not influence reviewer selection, editorial assessment, peer-review outcomes, or acceptance decisions.
16. Publisher and Journal Responsibilities
Scientific Publications provides the organizational framework and publishing support necessary to maintain appropriate peer-review standards.
The relevant journal’s editorial team is responsible for implementing the peer-review process and making editorial decisions according to the journal’s scope and policies.
The publisher may intervene when serious ethical, procedural, or integrity concerns relating to the peer-review process are identified.
17. Transparency
Each journal published by Scientific Publications should provide clear information about its peer-review process, including the applicable review model and relevant author requirements.
Peer-review procedures may be reviewed and updated as necessary to reflect developments in scholarly publishing and responsible research practices.
18. Policy Review
Scientific Publications may periodically review this policy to maintain alignment with recognized standards and best practices in scholarly publishing.
Updates to this policy will be published on the Scientific Publications website.
Contact
Scientific Publications
Website: https://scientificpublications.org/
Email: publisher@scientificpublications.org
Last Updated: August 2026