Peer Review Policy

The Peer Review Policy is a fundamental element in maintaining the quality, credibility, and scientific integrity of the Journal of Science and Knowledge Horizons (JSKP). We are committed to ensuring the highest standards of academic publishing by implementing a rigorous double-blind peer review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo thorough evaluation by experts in the field to assess their validity, originality, relevance, and adherence to ethical guidelines.

Double-Blind Review Process

To preserve objectivity and impartiality, JSKP employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. This ensures that the evaluation process is free from bias and that manuscripts are assessed solely on their scientific merit. The anonymity of both authors and reviewers fosters a fair and impartial review environment.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, knowledge, and experience relevant to the manuscript’s topic. We aim to ensure diversity in our selection of reviewers, incorporating a range of perspectives to guarantee a well-rounded and comprehensive evaluation. Reviewers are typically academics, researchers, or practitioners with expertise in the field related to the manuscript, ensuring a high level of credibility and relevance in the evaluation process.

Timely and Constructive Review

We prioritize providing timely feedback to authors to assist in the efficient and transparent decision-making process. Reviewers are requested to submit their evaluations within 2 to 8 weeks from the date of invitation. If a reviewer cannot meet this timeline, they are expected to notify the editorial team promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be found. This ensures that the review process remains efficient and that authors receive constructive feedback in a timely manner.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate submitted manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

Originality: Assess the novelty and contribution of the research to the existing body of knowledge.
Significance: Evaluate the relevance of the research to the academic community and its potential impact on the field.
Methodology: Examine the appropriateness and rigor of the research design, data collection, and analytical methods used in the study.
Results: Assess the validity, reliability, and accuracy of the findings, and their alignment with the research questions and objectives.
Conclusions: Determine if the conclusions are well-supported by the data and logically follow from the results.
Clarity and Presentation: Evaluate the clarity, structure, and organization of the manuscript, including the quality of the writing, figures, and tables.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide specific, constructive suggestions for improvement, offering guidance on how the manuscript can be enhanced.

Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality during the entire review process. Any information regarding the manuscript, including its content, status, or the identity of the authors, should not be disclosed to anyone outside the peer review process. Additionally, all manuscripts must adhere to ethical guidelines, including respect for intellectual property, avoidance of plagiarism, and the proper acknowledgment of previous works.

JSKP operates with zero tolerance for plagiarism and other unethical research practices. All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism checks using leading software tools to ensure the integrity of the content.

Ethical Considerations

In line with global academic publishing standards, JSKP emphasizes the importance of ethical conduct in research and publication. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to follow ethical guidelines outlined by international organizations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This includes:

Authorship and Contribution: Ensuring that all individuals who made significant contributions to the research are properly credited as authors, and that any conflicts of interest are disclosed.
Conflict of Interest: Authors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might influence the objectivity of the manuscript evaluation or the research itself.
Plagiarism and Fabrication: The journal follows a strict anti-plagiarism policy, and all manuscripts are checked for originality. Any evidence of plagiarism or data fabrication will result in the manuscript being rejected.
Human and Animal Rights: Research involving human or animal subjects must comply with ethical standards and have the necessary approvals from relevant ethics committees.

Appeals and Resubmissions

In case authors disagree with the reviewer's decision or wish to appeal the outcome of their manuscript evaluation, JSKP provides a formal process for appeal. Authors may submit a rebuttal letter outlining their reasons for contesting the decision. The editorial board will review the appeal, and if necessary, an additional reviewer may be appointed to re-evaluate the manuscript.

If authors are asked to revise and resubmit their manuscripts, they must address all reviewer comments in detail and provide a point-by-point response to each suggestion. Manuscripts are then reassessed to ensure that revisions meet the required standards.

Review Process Transparency

To ensure transparency and accountability in the peer review process, JSKP allows authors to suggest potential reviewers when submitting their manuscript. However, the final decision on reviewer selection rests with the editorial team. After the review process is completed, authors will receive feedback summarizing the reviewers' comments and the editorial decision.

Key Stages and Decision Points:

Submission and Initial Checks:

Authors submit their articles through the journal's online portal.

An automated confirmation email is sent to the author.

The article is evaluated for adherence to scope and length requirements.

If the article meets these criteria, it proceeds to the next stage; otherwise, it is rejected.

Plagiarism Check:

The article's originality is assessed using plagiarism detection software.

If the plagiarism level exceeds 20%, the article is rejected.

For articles with a plagiarism rate below 20%, the review continues.

AI Content Check and Alignment:

The article is analyzed for AI-generated content.

The alignment of the article's content with the journal's scope and guidelines is evaluated.

If the article fails to meet these criteria, it is rejected.

Peer Review:

The article is anonymized and sent to two selected reviewers for evaluation.

Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editor may request revisions or reject the article.

If necessary, a third reviewer may be consulted.

Revisions and Acceptance:

Authors are given the opportunity to address reviewers' comments and submit revised versions of their articles.

Once the revisions are satisfactory, the article is accepted for publication.

Copyediting and Final Preparation:

The accepted article undergoes copyediting to ensure grammatical accuracy, consistency in formatting and referencing, and overall clarity.

The article is then prepared for publication.

Publication:

The final, polished version of the article is published in the journal.

Decision Points and Outcomes:

Reject: The article is deemed unsuitable for publication due to various reasons, such as not meeting the journal's scope, excessive plagiarism, or inadequate quality.

Flag: The article may be flagged for further investigation, such as if there is a significant concern about AI-generated content.

Pass: The article successfully meets the criteria at a particular stage and proceeds to the next.

Timelines:

The flowchart provides estimated timelines for each stage, indicating the average time it takes for a decision to be made.

In essence, this flowchart provides a clear and concise overview of the rigorous review process that articles undergo before being accepted for publication in the "Journal of Science and Knowledge Horizons." It emphasizes the importance of originality, adherence to guidelines, and the role of peer review in ensuring the quality of published research.