1. Home
  2. Editorial Process

Editorial Process

All manuscripts sent for publication in our journals are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts (this includes spontaneous submissions, and invited papers). The Managing Editor of the journal will perform a technical pre-check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt. The Editorial Board Member will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. The Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. To uphold transparency and keep authors informed on the progress of the peer review, a preliminary version of the reviewers' reports, collected during the peer-review process, is made accessible to authors via the OJS platform. We ask our authors for adequate revisions (with a second round of peer-review if necessary) before a final decision is made. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board Member or the Collection Editor. Accepted articles are copy-edited and English-edited.

Pre-Check

The pre-screening stage consists of two main steps: a technical pre-check performed by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check performed by an academic editor.

Immediately after submission, the journal’s Managing Editor will perform the technical pre-check to assess:

  • The overall suitability of the manuscript to the journal/Topical Collection;
  • Manuscript adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards;
  • Standards of rigor to qualify for further review.

The Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board member or the Collection Editor will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. During the editorial pre-check phase, the academic editor will assess the suitability of the submission with respect to the scope of the journal, as well as the overall scientific soundness of the manuscript, including the relevance of the references and the correctness of the applied methodology. The academic editors can decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or continue with the peer review process and recommend suitable reviewers.

Collection Editors of Topical Collections are not able to make decisions regarding their own manuscripts submitted to their Topical Collection, as this would constitute a conflict of interest. An Editorial Board member will instead be responsible for decision making. The Collection Editor will be unable to access the review process except in their role as author. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief or other Editorial Board members are not able to access the review process of their manuscript except in their role as authors.

Peer Review

From submission to final decision or publication, one dedicated UK Scientific Publishing Limited staff member coordinates the review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors, academic editors, and reviewers.

UK Scientific Publishing Limited’s journals operate double-blind peer review, where in addition to the author not knowing the identity of the reviewer, the reviewer is unaware of the author’s identity.

At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. The academic editor can suggest reviewers during pre-check. Alternatively, UK Scientific Publishing Limited editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board members, qualified reviewers from our database, our reviewer board, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles.

The following criteria are applied to all reviewers:

  • They should hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;
  • They should not come from the same institution as the authors;
  • They should not have published together with the authors in the last five years;
  • They should hold a PhD or be a MD (applicable for medical journals);
  • They should have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus or ORCID);
  • They should be experienced scholars in the field of the submitted paper;
  • They should hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.
  • Reviewers who are accepted to review a manuscript are expected to:
  • Have the necessary expertise to judge manuscript quality;
  • Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout peer review;
  • Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided 7–10 days to write their review via our online platform, OJS. Extensions can be granted on request. Decision categories include：

  • Accept: Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form with no further modifications required.
  • Accept with Revisions: Manuscripts receiving a revisions decision will be published under the condition that minor/major modifications are made. Revisions will be reviewed by an editor to ensure necessary updates are made prior to publication.
  • Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be reworked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. However, It will require a second round of review.
  • Reject: Rejected manuscripts will not be published and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within 3 days. Extensions can also be granted on request.

To assist academic editors, UK Scientific Publishing Limited staff handle all communication with reviewers, authors, and the external editor. Academic editors can check the status of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at any time, and are able to discuss manuscript review at any stage with UK Scientific Publishing Limited staff.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. Appeals can only be submitted following a “reject and decline resubmission” decision and should be submitted within three months from the decision date. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the appeal not being considered further. The Managing Editor will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to a designated Editorial Board Member. The academic editor being consulted will be asked to provide an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer review, or uphold the original rejection decision. This decision will then be validated by the Editor-in-Chief. A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.