Review Policy
Transparent and rigorous peer review process ensuring academic excellence and integrity
Our Commitment: SVLNS GDC Multidisciplinary Journal maintains the highest standards of peer review through a transparent, fair, and rigorous double-blind review process conducted by international experts in relevant fields.
Double-Blind Peer Review Process
Our comprehensive review process ensures quality, originality, and academic rigor
What is Double-Blind Review?
In double-blind peer review, both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process, ensuring unbiased evaluation based solely on the merit of the research.
- • Authors remain anonymous to reviewers
- • Reviewers remain anonymous to authors
- • Eliminates potential bias and conflicts
- • Ensures objective evaluation
Review Criteria
- • Originality: Novel contribution to knowledge
- • Methodology: Sound research design and methods
- • Significance: Importance and impact of findings
- • Clarity: Clear presentation and writing quality
- • Ethics: Adherence to research ethics
- • Scope: Alignment with journal's aims
Review Timeline
1
Initial Editorial Screening (3-5 days)
Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor reviews manuscript for scope, format, and basic requirements
2
Reviewer Assignment (2-3 days)
Minimum 2-3 expert reviewers are selected based on expertise and availability
3
Peer Review Period (21-28 days)
Reviewers conduct thorough evaluation and provide detailed feedback
4
Editorial Decision (3-5 days)
Editor makes final decision based on reviewer recommendations
Possible Review Outcomes
Understanding the different editorial decisions and next steps for authors
Accept
Manuscript accepted with minor or no revisions required
Minor Revisions
Manuscript requires minor changes before acceptance
Major Revisions
Significant revisions needed; re-review required
Reject
Manuscript does not meet publication standards
Decision Factors
- • Quality and rigor of research methodology
- • Originality and significance of contribution
- • Clarity of presentation and writing
- • Adherence to ethical standards
- • Alignment with journal scope
- • Statistical validity (where applicable)
- • Literature review comprehensiveness
- • Practical implications and impact
Reviewer Selection Criteria
Expertise Requirements
- • PhD in relevant field or equivalent expertise
- • Active research record in the subject area
- • Publication history in peer-reviewed journals
- • International recognition in the field
- • Previous peer review experience
- • Current institutional affiliation
Selection Process
- • Database of qualified reviewers maintained
- • Automatic conflict of interest screening
- • Geographic and institutional diversity ensured
- • Workload balance considered
- • Author suggestions may be considered
- • Final selection by Associate Editor
Reviewer Guidelines
Review Responsibilities
- • Provide objective, constructive feedback
- • Evaluate manuscript within expertise area
- • Maintain confidentiality throughout process
- • Complete review within agreed timeframe
- • Declare any conflicts of interest
- • Provide detailed written comments
- • Recommend appropriate editorial action
- • Respect intellectual property rights
Review Report Structure
- • Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript
- • Strengths: Positive aspects and contributions
- • Weaknesses: Areas needing improvement
- • Specific Comments: Detailed line-by-line feedback
- • Recommendation: Clear editorial recommendation
- • Confidential Comments: Additional notes for editor
Appeals and Complaints Process
Fair and transparent process for addressing author concerns
Grounds for Appeal
- • Procedural errors in review process
- • Reviewer bias or misconduct
- • Misunderstanding of manuscript content
- • New evidence or significant corrections
- • Conflict of interest not disclosed
Appeal Process
- • Submit formal appeal within 30 days
- • Provide detailed justification
- • Independent editorial review
- • Additional expert opinion if needed
- • Final decision within 21 days
Quality Assurance Measures
Continuous improvement and monitoring of review process
Process Monitoring
- • Regular review timeline tracking
- • Reviewer performance evaluation
- • Author satisfaction surveys
- • Editorial decision consistency
Reviewer Training
- • New reviewer orientation
- • Best practices guidelines
- • Ethics training programs
- • Feedback and improvement
Continuous Improvement
- • Annual policy review
- • International best practices
- • Technology integration
- • Stakeholder feedback