Peer Review Process

SER is committed to ensuring the highest standards of academic rigor through a meticulous peer review process. The integrity and credibility of peer-reviewed articles are affirmed through comprehensive evaluations by experts in the relevant fields. This process is instrumental in validating research quality and enhancing scholarly contributions.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process at SER serves two primary objectives:

  1. Publication Evaluation: To assess whether a manuscript meets the journal’s standards of quality, originality, and relevance, and thus warrant publication.
  2. Manuscript Enhancement: To improve the manuscript’s quality through constructive feedback, ensuring it meets scholarly and editorial standards prior to publication.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

  1. Submission and Preliminary Screening
    • Manuscript Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts along with the abstract, keywords, and any supplementary materials required by the journal.
    • Preliminary Screening: The editorial team conducts an initial review to confirm the manuscript’s adherence to the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and basic quality criteria.
  2. Editorial Assessment
    • Initial Review by Editor: The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript for its scientific merit, relevance, and alignment with the journal’s objectives. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fall outside the journal’s scope, duplicate recent publications, contribute minimally to the field, or exhibit significant methodological flaws.
    • Reviewer Selection: For manuscripts deemed suitable, the editor selects qualified reviewers who possess the relevant expertise and are free from conflicts of interest.
  3. Peer Review
    • Reviewer Invitation: Reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript’s quality, methodology, and contributions. Their evaluations are critical in determining the manuscript’s suitability for publication.
    • Review Process: Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations, which inform the editor’s decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.
    • Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes a decision regarding the manuscript’s status. This decision may involve acceptance, requests for revision, or rejection. In cases where further input is necessary, additional reviews or consultation with the advisory committee may be sought.
  4. Revision and Resubmission
    • Author Revisions: Authors address the feedback received and revise their manuscripts accordingly. Revised manuscripts are resubmitted for further evaluation.
    • Re-Evaluation: Revised manuscripts may be subjected to additional review to ensure that the feedback has been adequately incorporated and that the manuscript meets the journal’s standards.
    • Final Decision: The editor makes a final decision regarding publication based on the revised manuscript and the collective recommendations from reviewers.
  5. Publication
    • Proofreading and Formatting: Accepted manuscripts undergo proofreading and formatting to ensure compliance with the journal’s publication standards.
    • Final Publication: The manuscript is published in its final form, either in print, online, or both, depending on the journal’s distribution practices.

Peer Review Protocols

  • Double-Blind Review: SER employs a double-blind review system, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This practice helps mitigate potential biases and ensures impartiality in the evaluation process.
  • Anonymization Procedures: Authors are required to:
    • Remove all identifying information, such as names and affiliations, from the manuscript and supplementary files.
    • Submit a separate title page containing author details.
    • Avoid self-references and acknowledgments that may disclose author identity.
    • Ensure that the manuscript and all related files are anonymized in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.
  • Pre-Refereeing Evaluation: The editorial office performs initial checks to verify that the manuscript is complete, legible, adheres to formatting requirements, and fits within the journal’s scope. Manuscripts failing these criteria may be rejected at this stage.
  • Review Process: Each manuscript is typically reviewed by three independent experts. The Section Editor consolidates the reviews and provides a unified decision to the authors. Acceptance is contingent upon receiving positive evaluations from at least two reviewers.

Withdrawal Requests

Withdrawal requests for an article are reviewed by the editorial board of the journal. To request the withdrawal of an article, the authors must send a letter signed by all authors stating their request and the reasons for withdrawal to the journal editor. The editorial board will then review the request and make a decision based on the reasons provided by the authors. If the request is approved, the article will be withdrawn from the journal and the authors will be notified of the decision. It is important to note that authors should not submit their work to another journal for evaluation until the withdrawal request has been approved. This is to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or duplication of publication.

Appeals and Complaint

The editorial board of the journal is responsible for addressing appeals and complaints in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the COPE. If an author has an appeal or complaint, they should contact the editorial office directly to discuss their concerns. The editorial board will review the case and make a decision based on COPE guidelines.

The editor-in-chief has the final authority in the decision-making process for all appeals and complaints. In some cases, an ombudsperson may be assigned to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally. It is important to note that the journal follows a fair and transparent process for handling appeals and complaints, with the goal of preserving the integrity of the scientific record.

Plagiarism Policy

SER upholds strict standards against plagiarism and self-plagiarism. The journal utilizes Turnitin and iThenticate plagiarism detection tools to ensure the originality of submissions. For further details on our plagiarism policy.

Review Process Duration

The typical duration of the peer review process ranges from 1 to 8 months from the date of submission, encompassing the review, revision, and final decision phases.