Peer Review Process

The peer review process at Scribeia is designed to uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity, fairness, and transparency. Every manuscript submitted to Scribeia undergoes a structured evaluation to ensure that published research is original, methodologically sound, ethically responsible, and valuable to the global research community.

Overview

Peer review is the foundation of scholarly publishing. It ensures that the work of authors is assessed critically and constructively by experts in the same field. At Scribeia, we view peer review not merely as a filter for publication but as a collaborative process that enhances the quality and clarity of scientific communication.

Stages of Review

  • Initial Editorial Screening: Each submission is first evaluated by the editorial team to verify its relevance, completeness, and adherence to the journal’s scope and ethical policies. Manuscripts that fall outside these standards may be declined before peer review.
  • Assignment to Handling Editor: Eligible manuscripts are assigned to an editor with expertise in the subject area. The handling editor identifies suitable reviewers and oversees the full review process.
  • Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, experience, and absence of conflicts of interest. Typically, two or more independent reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Double-Anonymized Review: Scribeia follows a double-anonymized model, meaning both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the process to reduce bias and promote objectivity.
  • Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers assess originality, significance, clarity, ethical compliance, methodological rigor, and data transparency. Their reports include constructive feedback intended to improve the work, even when recommending rejection.
  • Editorial Decision: The handling editor reviews all feedback and makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief. The decision may be acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
  • Author Revision: Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond thoroughly and respectfully to all reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts should include a response letter detailing the changes made.
  • Re-Review (if required): In cases of substantial revision, the manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation before a final decision.
  • Final Acceptance and Proofing: Once accepted, the paper undergoes technical and language checks before publication. Authors review the proofs to ensure accuracy.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are integral to the scholarly ecosystem. Their ethical conduct ensures fairness and trust in publishing.

  • Maintain confidentiality of all materials and information received for review.
  • Provide objective, unbiased, and evidence-based assessments.
  • Avoid personal criticism and provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect judgment and decline reviews where necessary.
  • Refrain from using unpublished material from a manuscript for personal advantage or research.

Editorial Integrity

Editors play a key role in ensuring that the review process remains impartial and transparent.

  • Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit of the work, not on author identity, nationality, gender, or institutional affiliation.
  • Editors select qualified reviewers and monitor the quality and timeliness of their reports.
  • Editors ensure confidentiality, manage conflicts of interest, and provide clear communication with authors at all stages.

Ethical Oversight

Scribeia adheres to the ethical guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any suspected ethical violation—such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submission—is investigated carefully and confidentially. Editors may contact authors, reviewers, or institutions to gather information before making an informed decision.

Decision Outcomes

Following the review process, one of the following decisions is communicated to the author:

  • Accept: The manuscript meets all scientific and editorial standards with only minor revisions required before publication.
  • Minor Revision: Small adjustments are needed, often regarding clarity or formatting.
  • Major Revision: Significant improvements are necessary in methods, analysis, or discussion before reconsideration.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s criteria or contains flaws that cannot be resolved within reasonable revisions.

Timelines

Scribeia strives for a fair and efficient review process that respects the time of authors and reviewers alike.

  • Initial editorial screening: 5–10 days
  • Peer review period: 3–6 weeks
  • Revision and resubmission: 2–4 weeks
  • Final decision and publication: 1–2 weeks after acceptance

Transparency and Accountability

To promote openness, Scribeia may publish review summaries, acknowledgments of reviewers, or anonymized reports, provided all participants consent. Review histories remain confidential unless disclosure is mutually agreed upon.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with a decision may file an appeal by submitting a detailed justification addressing specific review points. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or independent committee to ensure fairness. Complaints about reviewer or editorial conduct are handled confidentially by the Ethics Office.

Commitment to Fairness

The Scribeia peer review process is built on respect, professionalism, and a shared belief in continuous improvement. Authors, reviewers, and editors work together to strengthen research quality and uphold the principles of ethical, inclusive, and transparent publishing.

Contact

For questions regarding these policies or ethical concerns, contact:
Editorial Office, Scribeia Publishing
Email: editorial@scribeia.com