Peer Review Process

Handling a manuscript

Editors are responsible for taking decisions regarding the manuscripts. They can decide on publishing or rejecting a paper according the criteria of the journal. In order to add clarity and transparency which assure authors that their manuscript is going through a fairly peer-review process, the following is the process of the editorial workflow of publishing a manuscript.

Editorial workflow and peer review process

The editorial workflow draws the whole steps that each manuscript has to go through. Once a manuscript is submitted online to the system, the peer-review process starts. Reviewers advise authors to improve their work to be more vigorous, well-written, and useful to the reader. The Journal employs a double-blind peer review process which dictates that both parties; the peer reviewers’ part and authors' part have no access to any information of one another.

Initial check by the Managing Editor

Plagiarism checking and scope fitting as soon as the author submits his/her manuscript, it undergoes an initial check by the Managing Editor to confirm the suitability of the manuscript to the scope of the journal and its validation to go through the peer review process. This step comprised of:

  1. Plagiarism check using iThenticate software to ensure that the manuscript was not published before, and it is inspired by the author himself.
  2. Checking if the paper fits the scope and the guidelines of the journal. If the Editor finds that the manuscript is not fit to be published in the journal and it does not have a considerable quality or that the subject of the manuscript may not be applicable to the aim and has insufficient quality, the processing of revision stopped as the manuscript shall be rejected.

If the manuscript passes the previous phases, the Managing Editor then sends it to the Editor in Chief for approval. Once the Editor in Chief accepts the submission, it is sent to the Editor.

If the Editor finds that the manuscript is within the scope of the journal scope, it is innovative, and in high quality as it imposes new idea or add useful development; the Editor authorizes the manuscript to go through the peer review process.

Editor assigns reviewers

The manuscript assigned by the editor to the one of the editorial team according to the area of expertise and the neutrality where there is not a struggle of conflict and the availability of editor. In this phase, the editor assigns the anonymized paper to three reviewers; two of them are external from the editorial team. Only two of the reviewers are needed to either accept the submission or accept the submission after further revisions. If further revisions are needed, the editor will communicate the reviewers’ comments to the author and require the author to send a final edited version of the paper and a version with the edits highlighted in yellow. The edited documents are sent to the reviewers once again for final approval. Once the reviewer ensures that the paper is now accepted, the editor recommends that the paper be accepted and sends the final paper to the managing editor.

The report on a manuscript is reported by the reviewers that contains the recommendation with one of the following results to the Editor:

Publish Inviolate

In this case, the managing editor ensure as the final check to e that the manuscript and its review process follow to the journal’s scope, guidelines and policies, he then proceeds the manuscript to the editor in chief. Here, the author notifies that the manuscript got the acceptance.

Publish after considering Minor Changes

In this step, the author should achieve the comments and submit again a copy that considered required changes. Accordingly, the manuscript forwards again to the reviewers to ensures that the changes have been happened. When this meets the editor’s satisfaction, the editor in chief approves the acceptance to be sent to the author.

Publish after considering Major Changes

In this case, the editor asks the author to re- submit the manuscript again considering the comments that are resulted from the revision process. The manuscript again proceeds to the original process along with the previous report. Reviewers are asked to report the manuscript and clarify if the author considered the previous comments and the manuscripts goes in right track, otherwise the recommendation of rejection will be sent to the author. If yes, the author achieves his commitments and successfully considered the comments, the report of the reviewers proceeds in the same previous cycle.

Reject this manuscript, it has not sufficient innovation

The editor in chief has the full right to reject a manuscript in preliminary stage if the manuscript does not meet the requirements of being fits to the journal scope and, policies, and guidelines or it has a lack of quality and incomplete outcomes. Reviewers reject the manuscript if it is not in a quality that contains innovative ideas or it is not coherent and incompact that brings high quality sciences to the readers.

Managing Editor’s final check

If the managing editor finds that the paper is still not prepared for publication, the manuscripts sent back to the editorial team. If the managing editor accepts the paper, it is forwarded to the Editor in Chief.

Production

Once the Editor in Chief accepts the submissions, it is sent to the production team to be language edited, formatted, and structured. The publication contains the name of editor in chief, names of the managing editors and a list of editors’ names that supervised the peer review process. The publication contains the recommendation of the Editor in chief with the acknowledgement to the editors and the assigned reviewers for their contribution in running the process and their achievements.

Recruiting Peer Reviewers

IEREK press encourages listed editors to invite reviewers to contribute in the revision process. The criteria of recruiting reviewers should be completely unbiased and impartial. The selection of reviewers also depends of their qualification and their area of expertise. Reviewers must hold academic degrees (At least a Post-Doctoral Degree). The reviewers also should have considerable experience in peer revision.