Editorial and peer review process

The journal uses double -blind peer review.

     When a manuscript is submitted to the journal, it is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, who performs initial screening. Manuscripts that do not fit the journal’s scope or are not deemed suitable for publication are rejected without review. The remaining manuscripts are assigned to a handling Editor who assigns two reviewers to assess each manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, reputation and previous experience as peer reviewers. The deadline for submission of the reviewers’ reports varies by article type.

    Upon receipt of the two reviewers’ reports, the Editor makes the first decision on the manuscript. If the decision is to request revision of the manuscript, authors make revision to resubmit their revised manuscript. The Editor may send revised manuscripts to peer reviewers for their feedback or may use his or her own judgement to assess how closely the authors have followed the Editor’s and the reviewers’ comments on the original manuscript. 

    The Editor then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on the manuscript’s suitability for publication. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making the final decision on each manuscript. 

      The members of the Editorial Team act in advisory roles, providing feedback as reviewers and making suggestions to improve the journal. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief is an author on a manuscript submitted to the journal, a member of the Editorial Team is responsible for making the final decision on the manuscript’s suitability for publication in the journal.

Reviewer selection and suggestions

Reviewers are selected without regard to geography and need not belong to the journal’s Editorial Board.  Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field, reputation, recommendation by others, and/or previous experience as peer reviewers for the journal. 

   When submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors may suggest reviewers that they would like included in or excluded from the peer review process. The Editor may consider these suggestions but is under no obligation to follow them. The selection, invitation and assignment of peer reviewers is at the Editor’s sole discretion.

Reviewer reports

It is the journal’s policy to transmit reviewers’ comments to the authors in their original form. However, the journal reserves the right to edit reviewers’ comments, without consulting the reviewers, if they contain offensive language, confidential information or recommendations for publication.

Acceptance criteria 

If a manuscript satisfies the journal’s requirements and represents a significant contribution to the published literature, the Editor may recommend acceptance for publication in the journal.

     Articles in the journal must:

• be within the subject area of the journal’s scope and otherwise appropriate

• be original

• have an adequate literature review

• have high quality research design

• have appropriate data analyses

• contain legitimate conclusions

• contain practical or managerial implications

• be free of ethical issues 

       If a manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for acceptance or revision, including attending to all relevant aspects described in this document, the Editor may recommend rejection.

Editorial independence

spsd Press  has granted the journal’s Editorial offices complete and sole responsibility for all editorial decisions. SPSD Press as publiser will not become involved in editorial decisions, except in cases of a fundamental breakdown of process.

Confidentiality in peer review

The journal maintains the confidentiality of all unpublished manuscripts. Editors and reviewers will not:

    1.disclose a reviewer’s identity unless the reviewer makes a reasonable request for such disclosure

   2.discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved with the manuscript or its peer review

      3.use any data or information from the manuscript in their own work or publications

    4.use information obtained from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage any individual or organization.

     In addition, reviewers will not reveal their identity to any of the authors of the manuscript or involve anyone else in the review without first requesting permission from the Editor.

Conflicts of interest in peer review

A conflict of interest exists when there are actual, perceived or potential circumstances that could influence an editor’s ability to act impartially when assessing a manuscript. Such circumstances might include having a personal or professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author, having a financial stake in the work or its publication, or having seen previous versions of the manuscript.

     Members of the journal’s Editorial Board and reviewers undertake or are asked to declare any conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts. An editor or reviewer who declares a conflict of interest is unassigned from the manuscript in question and is replaced by a new editor or reviewer. Editors try to avoid conflicts of interest when inviting reviewers, but it is not always possible to identify potential bias.

Editors as authors in the journal

Any member of the journal’s Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief who is an author on a submitted manuscript is excluded from the peer review process. Within the journal’s online manuscript submission and tracking system, they will be able to see their manuscript as an author but not as an editor, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of peer review.

     A manuscript authored by an editor of the journal is subject to the same high standards of peer review and editorial decision making as any manuscript considered by the journal.