Peer Review Process

Introduction

At Scientific Steps Group, we follow a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of the research articles published in our journals. Our peer review process involves several steps that involve experts in the field who provide valuable feedback to authors.

Double Blind Peer Review

At Scientific Steps Group, we employ a double-blind peer review process to ensure the fairness, objectivity, and integrity of our publication procedures. This means that both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed from each other during the review process. Below are the guidelines for our double-blind peer review process:

Manuscript Preparation:

Authors should ensure that their manuscript does not contain any information that could directly identify them. Remove author names, affiliations, or any other identifying information from the main text, headers, footers, and acknowledgments.

Avoid self-references that may reveal the authors’ identities. Instead of “As we have previously shown…” use “As previous studies have demonstrated…”

If applicable, ensure that figures, tables, and supplementary materials do not disclose the authors’ identities. Remove any personal identifying information from the file properties and metadata.

Submission:

Authors should submit their manuscripts through our online submission system, following the specified guidelines. During the submission process, they will be required to provide separate author information, which will remain confidential and accessible only to the editorial team.

Reviewer Selection:

The editorial team selects qualified reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field and are free from any potential conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewers are instructed to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts and refrain from disclosing any information about the review process.

Review Process:

The editorial team assigns the submitted manuscript to the selected reviewers without revealing the authors’ identities.

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s quality, originality, methodology, and adherence to ethical standards.

Reviewers provide constructive feedback, suggestions for improvements, and a recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Decision Making:

Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editorial team makes a decision regarding the manuscript. The decision can be acceptance, rejection, or a request for revisions.

The authors receive the decision along with anonymized comments from the reviewers to guide them in improving their manuscript.

Author-Reviewer Interaction:

Authors should not attempt to contact the reviewers directly during the review process. All communications should be directed to the editorial office.

Maintaining Anonymity:

If revisions are requested, authors should ensure that the revised manuscript does not include any information that could reveal their identities.

Upon acceptance, the authors’ identities will be added to the final published version.

At Scientific Steps Group, we value the integrity of the double-blind peer review process as it helps ensure unbiased evaluation of research manuscripts. By adhering to these guidelines, we aim to maintain a fair and objective review system that upholds the highest standards of academic publishing.

The Peer Review Process

SSG Journals employs a three-stage review process – editorial office, external review and editors’ decision.

The first stage of the review process takes place in the editorial office. On submission, a manuscript is reviewed to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements of the journal before it is sent to external reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed for the following.

• Possible plagiarism: The manuscript is evaluated to compare the level of similarity with other published works. SSG Journals uses Turnitin plagiarism detection system to achieve this goal. Manuscripts that have high level of similarity (>20%) with other works (including the author(s) previous works) are rejected at this stage. Authors are provided with the similarity report together with the decision to reject the manuscript.

• Scope: After a manuscript has undergone similarity check and the level of similarity is judged to be appropriate, the content of the manuscript is checked to ensure that it fits within the scope of the journal selected by the author(s). In situations where the content of the manuscript does not fit the scope of the journal, the author’s consent is sought for the manuscript to be transferred to a more suitable journal. A transferred manuscript does not automatically translate to an accepted manuscript in the receiving journal. The manuscript still undergoes the usual peer review and may be accepted or reject if it is not suitable.

• Recent references: Academic Journals encourage authors to cite more recent articles. Preferably, considerable number of the cited articles should be works that were published within the last five years. This is especially important for articles submitted to journals in the life sciences.

• English Language: Academic Journals currently publishes full text of articles only in English language.

• Manuscripts are checked for the structure, organization, correctness and clarity of the language as it adheres to the journal’s Instructions for Authors. The editorial office usually makes correction to minor grammatical errors in such a manner that it does not alter the manuscript. However, in situations where language is substantially difficult to comprehend, the manuscript is returned to the author to improve clarity of the language.

Manuscripts that fails in this first stage of the review process are returned to the author(s) for modification and resubmission. This first stage of the review is very important as it enables the author(s) improve the manuscript at an early stage. This first stage of the manuscript review is usually completed within 3-5 days.

Once a manuscript successfully completes the editorial office review process, it proceeds to the second stage. The second stage of the review process employs the double-blind review system. Three external reviewers are selected from our database, editorial board of the journal or other sources. These reviewers have expert knowledge of the subject area of the manuscript. The reviewers are invited to review the manuscript by sending them the abstract of the manuscript. Upon acceptance to review the manuscript, the full text of the manuscript is sent to the reviewers after the author(s) have been concealed.

Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscripts and provide useful comments to enable the author(s) improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers also score the manuscript in terms of originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, and clarity of presentation and depth of research. Finally, reviewers make one of the following suggestion about the manuscript;

• Requires minor corrections.
• Requires moderate revision.
• Requires major revision.
• Not suitable for further processing. In this case, the reviewer provides specific reason(s) why the manuscript not be further processed.

It should be noted that though a reviewer may give a positive report on a particular manuscript, if another reviewer raises concerns that may fundamentally undermine the study and results the manuscript may be rejected.

Upon receipt of the reviewers’ comments, the editorial office reviews the comment. All reviewers’ comments are thereafter sent to the author(s). The reviewers’ identities are concealed from the author(s). The total time taken to complete the second stage of the manuscript review dependent on the availability of the reviewers. However, it is usually completed between 2-3 weeks.

Using the reviewers’ comments, author(s) make corrections to the manuscript and submits a revised manuscript. Upon receipt of the revised submission, the manuscript undergoes the third and final stage of the review process. The original manuscript, the revised manuscript and all the reviewers’ comments are sent to an editor of the journal. The editor reviews the manuscript and makes one the following decisions.

• Accept as it is.
• Accept with minor correction.
• Requires major corrections.
• Send revised manuscript for review again.
• Reject.

Manuscripts that are accepted as it is are scheduled for publication. Manuscripts that require corrections (either minor or major) are sent to the author(s) to affect the corrections suggested by the editor. After effecting the corrections, the editor reviews the manuscripts again before the manuscripts are accepted for publication. In some cases, the editor may require authors to make corrections a second time. In other cases, the editor may request for the revised manuscripts with (or without) the additional corrections to be sent to a specific reviewer who had earlier reviewed the manuscript before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.