Peer Review Process

Next Scientists – Review Policy for All Journals

All journals under Next Scientists follow a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scholarly publishing, objectivity, and research integrity.

In a double-blind review system, both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This model helps eliminate potential biases related to the author's identity, affiliation, gender, nationality, or reputation.

1. Submission Acknowledgment

Once a manuscript is submitted through the journal’s submission system or email, the editorial office acknowledges receipt and checks the manuscript for:

Completeness and formatting
Plagiarism (using reliable detection tools)
Compliance with the journal’s scope and ethical standards

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor conducts an initial assessment to determine:

Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
Scientific quality and originality
Adherence to ethical standards

Only manuscripts that pass this stage are forwarded for peer review.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Qualified and independent reviewers with relevant expertise are selected from the journal’s reviewer database or editorial network. Each manuscript is typically reviewed by two or more reviewers.

Reviewers receive a blinded manuscript, meaning it contains no author-identifying information.
Authors also do not know the identity of reviewers, preserving reviewer confidentiality.

4. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

Originality and significance of the research
Methodological rigor
Theoretical and/or practical contribution
Clarity of presentation and structure
Appropriateness of references and citations
Ethical compliance (e.g., informed consent, approval, data transparency)

Each reviewer provides:

A detailed evaluation report
Suggestions for improvement
A recommendation (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject)

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewer feedback, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor makes one of the following decisions:

Accept as is
Accept with minor revisions
Request major revisions
Reject with justification

Authors are notified of the decision along with anonymized reviewer comments. In case of revisions, the manuscript is re-evaluated (often by the same reviewers) until a final decision is reached.

6. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All information regarding manuscripts is treated as strictly confidential.
Reviewers and editors are expected to declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.
All reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally, without personal criticism.

7. Timeline

The average time for initial review decisions is 2 to 5 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and subject complexity. Authors are kept informed throughout the process.