PEER REVIEW PROCESS

2023-09-22

Scientific Route OÜ publishing house's journals adhere to a double-blind peer review process, encompassing the following steps:

  1. Submission and Assignment of Reviewers: All submitted manuscripts are sent to a minimum of two external experts in the relevant field for evaluation. The review process is double-blind, ensuring anonymity between authors and reviewers.

  2. Review and Feedback: Reviewers' comments and assessments are shared with the authors, along with potential recommendations for revising the manuscript. The editor informs the authors if the manuscript is accepted without revisions, needs revisions and resubmission, or is rejected.

  3. Editorial Decisions: The editor reserves the right to seek additional expert opinions or reject the manuscript, even if initially recommended for acceptance, in cases involving data falsification/fabrication, misinformation, or threats to public health.

  4. Review Duration: The double-blind review process typically spans 1-6 months.

  5. Ethical Conduct: During the double-blind review, both the editor and reviewers commit to upholding publication ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Reviewer's Obligations and Rights:

  • Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and not share the manuscript or its contents with third parties. They should use the material solely for providing an expert assessment.
  • If additional expert opinions are needed, reviewers should notify the journal editor and may suggest a specialist for this purpose.
  • Reviewers should disclose any conflict of interest and decline to review if such a conflict exists.
  • Reviewers have the right to decline to review a manuscript and should promptly inform the journal editor of their decision.

Author's Obligations and Rights:

  • Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could affect the review process.
  • Authors can justify their disagreement with reviewer-suggested corrections, initiating a scientific discussion. If necessary, an additional expert may be involved.
  • Refusal to make necessary corrections without scientific justification may lead to manuscript rejection.
  • If authors suspect data misappropriation or disclosure by a reviewer, they should notify the journal editor.

Handling Complaints of Data Misappropriation:

  • If a complaint about data misappropriation or disclosure is received, a thorough investigation is conducted.
  • Additional evidence may be requested from the complaining author and an explanation from the accused reviewer.
  • Additional experts and institutions may be involved if needed.
  • If allegations are substantiated, appropriate actions are taken, including removing the reviewer from the journal's database and informing relevant institutions and parties about the misconduct.

This robust peer review process ensures the integrity and quality of the publications while upholding ethical standards and transparency.