Peer Review

Reviewers play a vital role in scholarly publishing, yet their contributions are often hidden. Peer review helps validate the research, establish a peer review method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Peer review exists to ensure that journals publish good science.

Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the science reported. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the journal manuscripts they review-they offer authors free advice.

SvedbergOpen aims to provide the best possible service to authors of original research articles, and the fairest system of peer review, with a dedicated in-house staff and the help of external reviewers and Editorial Board of internationally renowned scientists.

 

 

Types of peer review

Open review

Reviewer and author are known to each other.

Single blind review

The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far.

Double-blind review

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous. SvedbergOpen practices the double-blind peer review process.

The peer review process can be broadly summarized below

Submission of Paper

The author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online submission system.

Editorial Board Assessment

The journal checks the paper’s structure and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

Manuscript can be rejected if it:

•     Lacks proper structure
•     Lacks the necessary detail for readers to fully understand the authors' analysis
•     Does not clearly explain which parts of the findings are new science, versus what was already  known
•     Lacks up-to-date references
•     Contains theories, concepts, or conclusions that are not fully supported by its data, arguments, and information
•     Does not provide enough details about materials and methods to allow other scientists to repeat the experiment
•     Lacks clear descriptions or explanations
•     Describes poor experimental design, or faulty or insufficient statistical analysis
•     Has poor language quality

Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

Review process conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

Revising

When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments:

•     Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers
•     Describe the revisions to your manuscript in your reply mail
•     Clearly show the major revisions in the text, either with a different color text by highlighting the changes, or with Microsoft Word's Track Changes
•     Return the revised manuscript within the time period prescribed by the editor

Editor Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

Decision about the manuscript

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

If accepted, the paper will be sent to production. If the article is rejected, we shall return to the author with comments. If the referee suggests any modifications or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.