Peer Review Process

• Editorial Procedures and Peer Review
• Response to Reviewers Comments

EDITORIAL PROCEDURES AND PEER REVIEW

Understanding the editorial procedures and peer review process is crucial for ensuring your manuscript undergoes a smooth and efficient review. Below is a detailed explanation of the typical steps involved:

Submission

• Initial Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through the OJS platform, which includes uploading the manuscript file and any supplementary materials, entering metadata, and providing a cover letter. Please, use template_manuscript file for preparing your manuscript.
• Submission Checklist: Authors must ensure their submission meets the journal’s guidelines, which are usually outlined in a submission checklist.

Initial Evaluation

• Editor Assignment: The journal managing editor or editor-in-chief assigns a section editor or handling editor who has expertise in the manuscript's subject area.
• Desk Review: The handling editor conducts a preliminary review to assess whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and meets basic quality standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected.

Peer Review

• Reviewer Selection: The handling editor selects potential reviewers from the journal’s database or by inviting new reviewers with relevant expertise.
• Review Invitation: Reviewers are invited through the OJS system. Those who accept the invitation are granted access to the manuscript and associated files.
• Review Process: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit their reports through the OJS platform. They provide detailed feedback, suggestions for improvement, and a recommendation (e.g., accept submission, revision required, resubmit for review, resubmit elsewhere, or decline submission).
• Anonymity: OJS supports double-blind peer review, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are anonymized to ensure unbiased reviews.

Editorial Decision

• Decision Making: The handling editor reviews the feedback from reviewers and makes an initial decision on the manuscript. Possible decisions include:
  • Accept submission: The manuscript is accepted as is.
  • Revision required: The manuscript requires minor changes.
  • Resubmit for review: The manuscript requires substantial changes and further review.
  • Resubmit elsewhere: The manuscript does not fit the scope of the journal.
  • Decline submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
• Author Notification: Authors are notified of the decision through the OJS system. They receive reviewers’ comments and the editor’s decision letter.

Revision and Resubmission

• Revisions: Authors revise their manuscript based on the feedback and resubmit it through the OJS platform. A response letter detailing the changes made and addressing the reviewers' comments is usually required. Please, use template_response_to_reviewers  file to response.
• Second Review: If major revisions were requested, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Final Decision

• Final Evaluation: The handling editor makes a final decision based on the revised manuscript and any additional reviewer feedback.
• Acceptance: Once the manuscript is accepted, it moves to the production stage.

Production

• Copyediting: The manuscript undergoes copyediting to correct grammatical, typographical, and formatting errors. OJS provides tools for managing this process.
• Proofreading: Authors review proofs of the manuscript and suggest minor corrections if necessary.
• Publication: The final version of the manuscript is published online in an issue of the journal, with all metadata and supplementary materials accessible.

Key Features of OJS for Editorial Procedures and Peer Review

• Automated Workflow: OJS automates many steps in the editorial process, providing a structured workflow from submission to publication.
• Reviewer Database: Editors can manage a database of reviewers and track their performance.
• Email Notifications: Automated email notifications keep authors, editors, and reviewers informed about the status of the manuscript at each stage.
• Version Control: OJS maintains a history of manuscript versions, making it easy to track changes and revisions.
• Ethics and Compliance: OJS supports the inclusion of ethical guidelines and conflict of interest disclosures as part of the submission process.

By leveraging the features of OJS, journals can streamline their editorial and peer review processes, ensuring efficient management of manuscript submissions and maintaining high standards of scholarly publishing.

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS COMMENTS

For each reviewer you should prepare document which consists of three main parts: Introduction, Point-by-Point Response, Overall Summary of Changes.

Introduction: Express gratitude for the reviewers' time and effort. A brief overview of the major changes made in response to the reviewers' comments. Highlight the strengths of the revised manuscript.

Point-by-Point Response: For each comment, directly quote the reviewer's statement, followed by a detailed explanation of the changes made. Clearly indicate the specific location of these changes within the revised manuscript (e.g., page number, line number). If you disagree with a reviewer's comment, provide a clear and respectful explanation for your decision.

Overall Summary of Changes: Provide a comprehensive summary of the primary revisions implemented in the manuscript. Reiterate how these changes contribute to the paper's overall quality and clarity.

Please, maintain a respectful tone throughout the document. Ensure there are no errors in grammar or spelling. Clearly and succinctly address each comment. Avoid vague or general responses.

By using template_response_to_reviewers, you can create a clear and effective response that demonstrates your engagement with the reviewers' feedback and your commitment to improving the manuscript.