Peer Review Policy

Each manuscript submission follows a structured review process:

  1. Initial Check: The Managing Editor performs a plagiarism check and evaluates the manuscript for suitability within the journal’s scope and adherence to formatting guidelines.
  2. Assignment to an Academic Editor: If the manuscript passes the initial check, it is assigned to an Academic Editor (typically the Editor-in-Chief). The Editor-in-Chief may delegate this role to another Editorial Board Member, Guest Editor, or an expert in the field.
  3. Preliminary Decision: The Academic Editor assesses the manuscript’s quality and relevance:
    • If deemed unsuitable or of insufficient quality, the manuscript is rejected without further review.
    • If suitable, it proceeds to full peer review.
  4. Peer Review: Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts in the field, who evaluate:
    • Significance and novelty of the research
    • Academic integrity and scientific soundness
    • Clarity and presentation
    • Validity and originality

Reviewers provide detailed reports and an overall recommendation within 14 days of accepting the review invitation. Possible recommendations include:

  • Acceptance
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Rejection
  1. Final Decision: The Academic Editor reviews the reports and makes a final decision. In certain cases, additional review reports may be required:
    • If two reviewers provide conflicting recommendations.
    • If the Academic Editor deems additional input necessary for decision-making.

Handling of Submissions by Editorial Board and Guest Editors

Submissions from Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors are managed separately to ensure impartiality. The submitting editor does not participate in the review or decision-making process.

For more details, refer to the Editorial Process of individual journals.

Peer Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

  • They have no conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions.
  • They have expertise in the manuscript’s subject area and can evaluate it objectively.
  • They have recent publications in the relevant field.
  • They can complete the review within the required timeframe.

This structured approach ensures a transparent, fair, and high-quality peer review process that upholds the integrity and scientific standards of CRC Journals  journals.

Authors’ Suggestions for Reviewers

Authors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers who possess specialized expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript. While these suggestions are encouraged, the journal retains full discretion in selecting reviewers. Authors should provide the following details for suggested reviewers:

  • Full name
  • E-mail address
  • Research areas of expertise
  • Institutional affiliation
  • ORCID ID (if available)

Reviewers Suggested by Authors Should:

  • Have a recent publication record in the specific area of the manuscript;
  • Not have any recent publications or submissions with any of the authors;
  • Not have shared an institutional affiliation with any author in the past few years;
  • Not be current or recent collaborators with any author;
  • Not have a close personal relationship with any author;
  • Not have a financial interest in the manuscript or research.

Notes for Peer Reviewers

  • Declare Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any relevant conflicts of interest before initiating the review process. If a conflict of interest arises during the review, the reviewer may choose to withdraw from the process.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process. They should not share details of the manuscript or contact the authors without prior permission from the journal editors.
  • Destroy Manuscript Copies: After completing the review, reviewers should destroy all copies of the manuscript.
  • Objective Evaluation: Reviews should be impartial and free of bias, irrespective of the authors’ nationality, gender, religious or political beliefs, or any commercial interests.
  • Report Misconduct: If reviewers notice any potential misconduct (such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or breaches of research ethics), they should immediately report it to the editorial office.
  • Do Not Self-Cite: Reviewers should not request that authors cite their own work, unless there is a valid scholarly reason.
  • Timely Submission: Review reports should be submitted promptly. Reviewers may request an extension if needed.

Other Participants and Their Responsibilities

  • Managing Editor: The Managing Editor is responsible for the initial checks (including manuscript scope, formatting, and plagiarism screening through tools such as iThenticate), identifying suitable reviewers, and managing communication between authors, reviewers, and the Academic Editor.
  • Academic Editor: The Academic Editor reviews the manuscript to determine if it is appropriate for peer review and makes the final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection based on reviewer feedback. The Academic Editor oversees the entire review process and evaluates the academic merit of the manuscript.

The Academic Editor is typically the Editor-in-Chief, though for specific papers, the Editor-in-Chief may delegate this responsibility to another Editorial Board member, a Guest Editor, or a subject matter expert.

The name of the Academic Editor will be published alongside the paper upon acceptance.

For further information about the peer review process, please refer to the Peer Review Guidelines for individual journals.