The Academic Research and Publishing UG (i. G.) (AR&P) LLC

The process of manuscript review is an essential stage in the publication process. It helps the Editors-in-Chief make decisions on the publication of the article and the Author(s) – on the manuscript improvement.

The reviewers are both members of Editorial board and external reviewers who are invited by the Editorial board to participate in the reviewing process, depending on their research interests.

Authors are not allowed to recommend reviewers for their own manuscripts.

Members of the Editorial office (managing editors, technical editors) do not make decisions on papers.

The journal supports the double-blind peer review system. The article review process takes up to 2 months.

This process takes such stages:Stage 1 – Submission. The corresponding author submits to the Editorial Office a manuscript and a Cover Letter signed by all authors. The Managing Editor checks if the paper meets the journal requirements, aims and scope, and anti-plagiarism standards. If the manuscript does not comply with the aforementioned criteria, it should be rejected. If the manuscript meets the above requirements, it is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for consideration.

Stage 2 – Preliminary review. At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief determines the potential interest of the manuscript for readers, the importance and relevance of the research topic for the academic community, confirms/denies the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s main topics. If the manuscript meets the above requirements, the Editor-in-Chief passes it to the Sectional Editor, who specializes in the manuscript’s subject area, for a desk review. If the manuscript does not meet the above requirements, it should be rejected.

Stage 3 – Desk review. The section editor examines the manuscript’s content, evaluates its scientific value, the quality of the research, the degree of consideration of the basic principles and current trends in the development of the relevant thematic area, and theoretical validity. The Section Editor may reject papers during the this stage if they do not match these criteria or possess no research quality. Rejected manuscripts are not subject to additional review, and the author is not permitted to resubmit the article for consideration to this journal. Time for first decision – up to 1 week.

Stage 4 – Assigning handling editor. After approving the manuscript at the preliminary review, the Section Editor appoints a Handling Editor for this manuscript from among the Editorial Board members, who will be responsible for organizing the review process. The Handling Editor should be a qualified specialist not only in the manuscript’s subject area, but also in the narrow subject matter addressed in the study. It is crucial for the Handling Editor to have a wide range of scientific contacts in this narrow subject matter and understand which scientists and research institutions in the world are working on this topic. This will allow them to take a reasonable and balanced approach to the reviewer selection.

Stage 5 – Assigning reviewers. At this stage, the Handling Editor selects two (usually) or more (if necessary) reviewers from among the Editorial Board members or engages external reviewers. The selection of reviewers is based on their scientific experience, academic reputation, presence of their own publications on the relevant manuscript’s subject matter, and the willingness of a potential reviewer to devote time and effort to reviewing the manuscript. The Handling Editor sends the manuscript to the reviewers for double-blind review. Since the journal has a double-blind peer review system, reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Also at this stage, the Handling Editor informs the author that the manuscript has been sent for double-blind review.

Stage 6 – Peer review. Reviewers must accept all prerequisite terms and conditions to prevent conflicts of interest, confirm their manuscript subject matter competence and precise reviewing criteria. One may refuse to review the manuscript. If they agree, they should provide the Referee Report with recommendations on time. The guidelines for reviewers are here.

In the Referee Reports, reviewers indicate one of the following decisions:

Accept: to accept the manuscript for publishing in its original form.
Minor revision: the manuscript requires minor corrections, which are indicated in the review.
Major revision: substantial review of the manuscript content is needed; recommendations for material improvement are indicated in the review.
Reject: to reject the manuscript on the basis stated in the review.
The main criteria for manuscript to be recommended by reviewers for approval are: the authenticity of scientific ideas and proposals, innovation of the scientific approach, significance of results in the science branch, theoretical basis, quality and completeness of reviewing current publications, clarity of research methodology, literacy and adherence to editorial requirements.

For reasons for paper rejection see website

Stage 7 – Referee Report. After reviewing, the Handling Editor examines referee reports. In some cases, the Handling Editor can invite an additional reviewer to get an extra opinion.

Stage 8 – Authors receiving reviews. At this stage, the Assistant Editor sends the reviewers’ comments to the authors. The time period between the manuscript submission to the journal and receiving the review reports is on average 10 weeks. Authors receive reviews without knowing the names of the reviewers. If the reviewers’ decision is “Accept”, the Handling Editor continues to work with the authors to prepare the manuscript for publication. If the reviewers’ decision is “Reject”, the manuscript is withdrawn from further consideration and the author has no right to resubmit it to this journal.

Stage 9 – Authors’ revise. If, after reviewing, the reviewers made one of these two decisions: “Minor revision” or “Substantial revision”, and in the reports, the reviewers provided the authors with recommendations or suggestions for making certain adjustments to the manuscript, the authors must revise it. The Editorial Board expects authors to do this within an average of 3 weeks. Delays in revising the manuscrupt and the loss of communication between the authors and the Handling Editor may serve as a reason for manuscript withdrawing from consideration in the journal. If the authors have objective reasons (illness, business trip, vacation, other family or work circumstances) that make it impossible to revise the manuscript promptly, they should notify the Handling Editor. The corresponding author should send the revised manuscript together with the file “Response to Reviewers’ Comments”, in which authors should adress all the reviewers’ recomendations. Authors may disagree with the reviewers’ opinions by offering own arguments and explanations. The opinions and suggestions expressed in the articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board. The authors are responsible for the information reliability in the articles, including the accuracy of names, statistical data, surnames, and quotes.

Stage 10 – Revised manuscript review. The manuscript, revised by the authors in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, is re-examined by the Handling Editor. The manuscript is also resubmitted to the reviewers for re-evaluation. The reviewers should express their final opinion on the authors’ adjustments to the manuscript. The Handling Editor informs the Editor-in-Chief about the review results and makes a suggestion for manuscript acceptance/rejection for publication.

Stage 11 – Making the final decision. The final decision on the manuscript publication/rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief. In the process of decision-making, the Editor-in-Chief may consult with the Sectional Editor who evaluated the manuscript at Stage 3.

Stage 12 – Informing the authors. At this stage, the Handling Editor should inform the authors about the the Editor-in-Chief’s final decision to approve/reject the manuscript. Upon request, the authors may be provided with the reviewers’ reports (without identifying the reviewers), where they express their final opinion on the authors’ adjustments to the manuscript. Authors may also appeal this decision by providing their own arguments and explanations.

Stage 13 – Preparation for publication. In case of the manuscript acceptance by the Editor-in-Chief, the paper revised by the authors is prepared for publication and the publication process begins. At this stage, the Technical Editor and the Proofreader join the work on the article. All communication with the authors is maintained by the Handling Editor. All co-authors must sign the “Publication Agreement” for the revised version of the manuscript to be published.