PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Publication of articles in the Journal is dependent solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by our editors and/or peer reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a useful contribution to the field. The Journal acknowledged the effort and suggestions made by its reviewers.

Initial evaluation of manuscripts

The Editor will evaluate all manuscripts submitted at a maximum of 3 weeks. Although rare, it is feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to expert reviewers for review. It usually took up to 8 weeks.

Type of peer review

Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates the already published works, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The method is a double-blind peer review. The next rounds of review processes would be done should the first round is inadequate.

Review reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

1. It is original by stating the objectives and gaps clearly
2. Is methodologically sound
3. Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
4. Have results/findings which are presented and support the conclusions
5. Correctly references previous relevant work
6. Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process.

Decision

Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports, and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. The editor’s decision is final.

Becoming a Reviewer

If you are not a reviewer for the Journal but would like to be added to the list of reviewers, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us via email at info@sanscientific.com to obtain the reviewer’s form. This form should you entirely and then resend via email. The benefits of reviewing for the Journal include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in the related research areas at an early stage and to be acknowledged in our list of reviewers. You can also cite your work for the Journal as part of your professional development requirements. The Journal are volunteers who contribute their expertise to the science; thus, no financial payments are made.

ARCHIVING

The Journal stores back issues and current articles following LOCKSS’s idea of keeping lots of copies of our items on several servers to keep them safe. The Journal also implemented PKP Private LOCKSS Network (PLN) preservation function, as seen in The Keepers Registry record at Portal ISSN here. The Keepers’ records originated from PKP PLN.