Peer Review Policy

This section outlines our policy on peer review, including the process, the roles of reviewers and editors, and our commitment to ensuring a fair, rigorous, and transparent review process.

Review Process

All submissions to ScholarCentrix journals undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process:

1. Initial screening: Editorial check for scope, formatting, and plagiarism
2. Editor assignment: Handling editor assigned based on expertise
3. Reviewer selection: 2-3 independent experts selected
4. Review period: Reviewers evaluate manuscript quality, originality, and validity
5. Decision: Editor makes decision based on reviewer recommendations
6. Revision: Authors revise manuscript based on feedback
7. Final decision: Editor makes final acceptance decision

Reviewer Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Expertise in the relevant field
• Publication record in similar topics
• Previous reviewing experience
• Lack of conflicts of interest with authors

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive feedback
• Identify strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript
• Evaluate methodology, analysis, and conclusions
• Maintain confidentiality of the review process
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 2-3 weeks)

Editorial Decisions

Possible decisions include:

• Accept: Manuscript accepted without changes
• Minor revisions: Accept after minor corrections
• Major revisions: Requires substantial changes and re-review
• Reject: Manuscript not suitable for publication

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal letter to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of the decision, explaining why they believe the decision should be reconsidered.