Journal Submission and Peer Review Process

Every manuscript submitted to our journal undergoes a rigorous plagiarism check. This involves a dual- phase procedure utilizing both automated software and manual inspection. Once an article clears this initial scrutiny, it proceeds to an editorial review to assess its scope, relevance, and adherence to our publication standards.

Importance of Scholarly Peer Review

The peer review process is vital for validating research before publication. Expert reviewers, who are professionals in the same field as the manuscript's subject matter, critically assess the quality and accuracy of the research. This process ensures that new scientific findings, innovations, and ideas are thoroughly evaluated before they are accepted and published. For all submissions to ScienceFrontier journals, a minimum of three peer reviews is mandatory to maintain high-quality standards.

Role and Significance of Peer Review

Peer review is the cornerstone of quality assurance in academic publishing. Experts in the relevant fields meticulously examine the manuscript, evaluating its writing, technical accuracy, documentation, and overall impact on the discipline. Reviewers’ insights are crucial in certifying the quality of the articles, establishing a standard for research within the community.

Conducting a Peer Review

Reviewers play an essential role in the publication process by validating the research and providing constructive feedback. They assess the validity, quality, and originality of the articles. ScienceFrontier requires that reviewers evaluate articles based on the journal's standards, ensuring completeness, accuracy, and quality of the research presented. Reviewers must also adhere to our Peer Reviewer Terms and Conditions to ensure a robust process.

Guidelines for Reviewers

When reviewing articles, consider the following:

1. General Evaluation: Is the paper easy to follow with a logical flow? Is all relevant data made available?

2. Novelty and Advancement: Does the work add new insights to the field? How does it compare to existing research?

3. Importance: Does the research matter to clinicians, researchers, policymakers, educators, or patients? How will it help readers make better decisions?

4. Scientific Reliability: Is the research question clearly defined and answered? Is the study design appropriate?

5. Methodology and Ethics: Are the methods well-described? Is the study ethical?

6. Results and Interpretation: Are the results credible and well-presented? Do they support the conclusions?

7. References: Are references up-to-date and relevant? Are there any significant omissions?

8. Supplementary Materials: Do supplementary files match the manuscript? Is additional information properly reported?

Peer Review Terms and Conditions

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to allow editors to make informed decisions.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers should not share or disclose any part of the manuscript.

Timeliness

Reviewers should only agree to review if they can do so within the agreed timeframe. Suggestions for alternative reviewers are welcome if necessary.

Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be fair, honest, and specific. Constructive criticism, supported by evidence, is essential for the authors’ improvement.

Using and Disclosing Reviews

ScienceFrontier does not publish peer reviews except in our open-access journals. Confidential comments to the editor may be included, but reviews will typically be shared with authors and other reviewers. Reviews must be civil and constructive; inappropriate comments may be edited or removed.

Peer Review Process

ScienceFrontier employs a double-blind peer review process where the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. The process involves several stages:

1. Initial Editorial Evaluation: The manuscript is evaluated for scope, quality, and originality.

2. External Review: If deemed suitable, it is sent for external peer review.

3. Decision Making: Based on reviews, the editor may accept, reject, or request revisions.

4. Revisions: Authors revise the manuscript based on reviewers’ feedback.

5. Final Review: Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated, potentially undergoing multiple rounds of revision.

Recognition and Incentives for Reviewers

While we aim to complete the peer review process as quickly as possible, please bear in mind that reviewers give their time voluntarily. There may be occasions where several reviewers are invited before the required number can be arranged, or when a reviewer fails to deliver a review and the invitation process needs to start again. The average time to first decision is published on each journal’s website.

Article provenance

Reviewing is crucial yet often thankless. ScienceFrontier values its reviewers and offers several incentives:

Publons Metrics: Reviewers can verify and showcase their contributions.

APC Discounts: Reviewers receive a 25% discount on Open Access charges.

Certificates: Available upon request for completed reviews.