The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of scholarly publishing. It serves as a quality control mechanism, ensuring that scientific articles meet certain standards of validity, significance, and originality before they are published in academic journals. Here's an overview of the typical peer review process:

• Submission: Authors must submit their manuscripts to scholarly journals for consideration for publication. The submission usually includes a cover letter, the manuscript itself, and any supplementary documents.
• Pre-peer review process: The Editorial office will check the quality of the submitted articles before sending those to peer review process, if the articles found plagiarism more than 20 % those will be sent for re writing.
• Editorial Assessment: Upon submission, the editor-in-chief or an associate editor evaluates the manuscript to determine if it meets the journal's scope and basic standards. This initial assessment may also check for adherence to formatting and ethical guidelines.
• Assignment of Reviewers: If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, the editor selects independent experts in the field, typically researchers or academics, to review the manuscript. These individuals are known as peer reviewers or referees.
• Peer Review: The selected reviewers go through the manuscripts carefully and provide detailed feedback on various aspects, including the novelty of the research, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of results, and clarity of writing. Reviewers may also assess the manuscript's significance to the field and its suitability for publication in the journal.
• Editor Decision: Based on the feedback from the peer reviewers, the editor makes a decision regarding the manuscript. Possible decisions include:
  • Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication without revisions or with minor revisions.
  • Revision: The authors are asked to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers comments and submit a revised version for further evaluation.
  • Rejection: The manuscript is not accepted for publication due to significant flaws or lack of suitability for the journal.
• Revision and Resubmission: If the manuscript requires revisions, the authors address the reviewers comments and make appropriate changes to the manuscript. They may also provide a detailed response letter explaining how they addressed each comment.
• Final Decision: The revised manuscript, along with the authors' response letter (rebuttal form), is reviewed by the editor to ensure that the revisions adequately address the reviewers concerns. The editor then makes a final decision on whether to accept the manuscript for publication.
• Publication: Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting to prepare it for publication according to the journal format. It is then published in the journal online as per the journal's format.

Peer Review Policies

At Scitech Journals, we uphold the highest standards of scholarly publishing by ensuring that every manuscript undergoes a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Peer review is the cornerstone of academic credibility, and we are committed to maintaining integrity, objectivity, and confidentiality throughout this process.

Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review system is designed to:

• Evaluate the quality, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts.
• Ensure that published research meets international standards of scientific accuracy and ethical integrity.
• Provide constructive feedback to authors, helping them improve the clarity, validity, and impact of their work.
• Safeguard the scholarly record by identifying flawed or unethical research practices.

Review Model

Scitech Journals generally follow a double-blind peer review model, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. This ensures impartiality and minimizes potential biases related to gender, affiliation, geography, or reputation. In some cases, specific journals may adopt single-blind or open peer review models, which will be clearly stated in the journal’s guidelines.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are carefully selected based on their subject expertise, academic qualifications, and publication record. Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent experts. Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide an unbiased, constructive, and timely assessment.
• Evaluate the manuscript solely on scientific merit, originality, methodology, and relevance.
• Decline reviews if they have conflicts of interest or lack the necessary expertise.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the information within a manuscript for personal gain or academic advantage. Authors’ unpublished data must not be disclosed or misused in any form.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the credibility of scholarly publishing. They are expected to:

• Provide clear, evidence-based feedback with specific suggestions for improvement.
• Identify potential issues of plagiarism, ethical misconduct, or data fabrication.
• Submit their review reports within the stipulated timeframe.
• Refrain from including personal criticism of authors in their comments.

Editorial Decision-Making

Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revision required
• Major revision required
• Reject

Authors are notified of the decision along with anonymized reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers before a final decision is made.

Appeals and Complaints

Scitech Journals provide authors with the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe the review process was unfair or biased. Appeals are carefully reviewed by the editorial board, and an independent reviewer may be invited for re-evaluation if necessary.

Ethical Considerations

The peer review process follows international ethical guidelines, including those recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers and editors must report any ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, or conflicts of interest, to the publisher for immediate investigation.

Transparency and Recognition

While the review process is kept confidential, Scitech Journals value the contributions of reviewers. Where appropriate, reviewers may be acknowledged in annual reviewer appreciation statements or have their reviewing activity verified through platforms such as Publons or ORCID.