Journal of PeerScientist | Peer-review process :

  • All the articles will undergo screening initially in Journal of PeerScientist to assure that the files are complete and are in proper format. An email will be sent to the author if the files are incomplete until then the manuscript cannot be processed.
  • After the primary screening, articles/manuscripts are sent to the Editor-in-Chief or assignment to two Editors (In the unavailability of Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor-in-Chief  / Managing Editor will be assigned). 
    • The Editor-in-Chief goes through the article and evaluates each manuscript to assure that if is appropriate for the Journal. If it is inappropriate, it is sent to at least two other editors for verification. Only 5-10% of manuscripts are returned to authors without peer review through this process.
    • Authors can suggest reviewers; this request is honored unless a conflict of interest is present, or the requested editor is unavailable.
    • Note: Suggested reviewers should not be the co-author or any author of the article in past 3 to 5 years.
    • Authors can exclude an editor by stating specific reasons and such requests are always honored.
    • The Editor-in-Chief individually might handle some article types; such as Letter to Editor, Rapid Reports, Short communications, and Reviews. The Editor-in-Chief also handles a fraction of manuscripts if the other editors are overloaded. The Editor-in-Chief can be chosen by an author to review their manuscript.
  • The Editor assigns the article to Reviewers for the assigned manuscript.
    • Editor needs to complete reviewer assignments within 1-2 business days after receiving a manuscript.
    • Reviewers are invited to groups of 6 or more at a time, to review one article, because the majority of invitees usually decline to review a paper. So, an Editor should take care of this aspect and he needs to get at least 2/3 acceptances from the reviewers.
    • Authors can suggest some reviewers and in the same way, they can exclude the particular reviewers; these requests are honored and will not be disclosed to anyone except for the Editor-in-Chief, Editor, and Publisher.
    • Assigned/ Invited reviewers are instructed to recuse themselves if they cannot complete their review in two weeks. In addition, reviewers receive reminders about the due date for their review, especially whenever the review is late.
    • If a review is delayed more than a week from the deadline date, if an associate editor is unable to communicate with the reviewer, then an alternate reviewer may be assigned.
  • After receiving the comments from the reviewers, the associate editor makes a decision about the manuscript.
    • Possible editorial decisions are "accept," "revise,"  "reject." These decisions are sent to Editor-in-Chief, who finally gives his/her decision based on the Reviewers and Editor’s comments.
      Note: In some cases, a reject decision is accompanied by an invitation to submit a new paper on the same topic. Such invitations are made when the submitted paper has serious issues but has the potential to convey important findings after extensive revision.
    • Often reviewers might provide differing opinions about a manuscript (Example: one reviewer is very positive, and another is very negative). It may be challenging for an associate editor to conclude which opinion is correct. For this reason, most of the editors take the opinion of 3-4 reviewers for a manuscript, to assure that they have sufficient input to make a fair decision.

2021 © All rights reserved. PeerScientist Services Pvt. Ltd.

Terms & Conditions | Privacy policy | About logo