Peer Review Process
| Post date: 2019/09/28 |
For the peer-review process in this journal, the 10 steps have been conducted as follow:
1. Submission of Paper The corresponding or submitting author submits the article to the journal. This is usually via an online system such as Scholar-One Manuscripts. Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.
2. Editorial Office Assessment The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) The editor-in-chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and consistent with journal scopes. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Editor in Chief Assigns an Associate Editor or Internal Manager (IM) Some journals have Associate Editors who handle the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.
5. Invitation to Reviewers The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 2, but there is some variation between journals.
6. Response to Invitations Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
7. Review is Conducted The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further request. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
9. The Decision is Communicated The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
10. Next Steps An Editor's Perspective: The peer-review process. If the paper is accepted, the paper will be sent for publication. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
1. Submission of Paper The corresponding or submitting author submits the article to the journal. This is usually via an online system such as Scholar-One Manuscripts. Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.
2. Editorial Office Assessment The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) The editor-in-chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and consistent with journal scopes. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Editor in Chief Assigns an Associate Editor or Internal Manager (IM) Some journals have Associate Editors who handle the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.
5. Invitation to Reviewers The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 2, but there is some variation between journals.
6. Response to Invitations Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
7. Review is Conducted The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further request. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
9. The Decision is Communicated The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
10. Next Steps An Editor's Perspective: The peer-review process. If the paper is accepted, the paper will be sent for publication. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
View: 4052 Time(s) | Print: 747 Time(s) | Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
