Peer Review Process

Sin-Chn Scientific Press publishes peer-reviewed journals in an open-access model. The journal’s editorial and ethical policies guide the behavior of all parties based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

The whole peer review process includes several crucial sections, such as initial check, peer review, and editorial decision.

Initial check

After receiving a new manuscript, a managing editor will check the completeness of the article structure, the standardization of the references, and the suitability of the article to the scope of the journal. Then, the managing editor will send the similarity report to an academic editor. Generally, an academic editor may be the Editor-in-Chief, an editorial board member, or a guest editor. The academic editor will check the academic ethics of the article, including crucial information on the originality, ethical approval, conflict of interest statements, authorship, plagiarism, and scientific validity of the article, as well as the relevance of references. Only manuscripts that have passed the initial check will proceed to the peer review process. Some articles will be rejected at this point, e.g., articles whose topics are outside the scope of the journal, that are against the journal’s editorial policies, that seriously breach ethics, that are excessively self-cited, that lack ethical approval, etc.

Peer review

Sin-Chn Scientific Press adopts a double-anonymous peer-review model. Peer review is used to assess the quality of a new manuscript. The academic editor will assign a manuscript to at least three independent-external reviewers for peer review. If there is evidence of potential plagiarism, the manuscript will not go on the next stage. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the journal and oversees the publication process. At least two high-quality reports should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief, and he/she will make a final decision whether it is accepted or rejected or revised.

Authors have the right to recommend a list of potential reviewers, and an assistant editor will ensure there is no potential conflict of interest. The journal office reserves the right to adopt this list. Given the conflict of interest, guest editors should not access the peer review process on their own manuscripts submitted to a special issue or a section collection. The Editor-in-Chief or another editorial board member will instead his/her responsibility. Similarly, editors from the Editorial Board should avoid reviewing a manuscript if he/she is one of the authors, or he/she comes from the same institute with the authors. Reviewers should understand all the editorial policies, and follow the guidelines in “For reviewers”.

If review reports contain different decisions, the academic editor will seek another comment from an editorial board member before asking for the final decision from the Editor-in-Chief. During the peer review process, the editorial staff eliminates interference in the making of any decisions.

 

Editorial decision:

While fully considering the recommendations of the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision. If the Editor-in-Chief believes that the manuscript should be rejected, it will be rejected even if two reviewers agree to accept it.

Generally, there are several decisions as followed:

Accept

Papers are accepted in principle on the basis of the reviewers’ comments with or without some minor modifications that are not about the research content.

Minor revisions

Papers will be accepted after minor revisions as specified in the reviewers’ comments. Authors have one week to complete the minor revisions and respond to the comments point by point.

Major revisions

Papers need major revisions as specified in the reviewers’ comments. Generally, authors should complete the major revisions and respond to the comments point by point within four weeks. The revised version will be passed to the same reviewer for further comments.

Decline

Papers will be declined finally, possibly due to serious errors, lack of science, or no contribution to the community.

Manuscripts that are declined but revised could be considered for a new review round after a new submission.

 

Expected article processing time:

Initial check: 3 days

Peer review process: 20 days

Minor revisions: 7 days

Major revisions: 28 days

 

Authors should reply to a report with a detailed point-by-point explanation, or appeal a rejection by e-mail to the Editorial Office within 30 days. The Editor-in-Chief will organize a team of experts to hold an academic debate; the final decision will be validated by the Editor-in-Chief at this stage.

Accepted manuscripts will be passed to the production stage.