Peer Review

Reviewers are essential to academic publishing, although their contributions are sometimes unnoticed. Peer review enhances networking opportunities within research communities, establishes a peer review methodology by which the research can be assessed, and helps validate the findings. Peer review helps publications guarantee high-quality scientific work.

An essential component of scientific publications, Peer review verifies the accuracy of the research presented. Experts who give their time to help improve journal submissions they assess are known as peer reviewers, and they provide free advice to authors.

SvedbergOpen works with a team of committed internal employees, external reviewers, and an Editorial Board of internationally recognized eminent professors and scientists to deliver the best service possible to authors of original research publications while maintaining the most equitable peer review system.

Types of peer review

While journals employ different forms for peer review, they all work on the same basic tenet of having subject matter experts provide feedback on a manuscript to help it get better. The most prevalent kinds include

Open review

Reviewer and authors are acquainted with one another.

It is a situation in which the identities of the reviewers are known to the authors, and the authors are informed about the identities of the reviewers. Sometimes journals will publish both the final paper that is published and the reports from the reviewers.

Single blind review

The identity of the reviewers are unknown to the author. This is the most popular kind of review, and it is the conventional approach.

Double-blind review

The reviewers assess the authors' work in a single-blind peer review process; the authors are not aware of who is evaluating their work. SvedbergOpen employs the procedure of double-blind peer review.

The peer review process can be broadly summarized below

Submission of Paper

The paper is sent in by the corresponding author or submitting author to the journal. Usually, an online submission mechanism is used for this.

Editorial Board Assessment

The structure and arrangement of the work are verified by the journal against the Author Guidelines to ensure that all necessary sections and stylizations are included. At this stage, the quality of the paper is not evaluated.

The manuscript may be disregarded if it:

•     Not appropriately structured
•     Does not provide enough information for readers to completely comprehend the authors' analysis.
•     Is unclear about what aspects of the findings represent new science and what was previously known.
•     Does not contain up-to-date references.
•     Included are theories, conceptions, or conclusions that lack sufficient evidence to support them in its data, arguments, and  information.
•     Does not give other scientists adequate information about the materials and procedures to enable them to repeat the experiment.
•     Is unclear in its explanations or descriptions.
•     Describes inadequate statistical analysis or incorrect experimental design.
•     Has substandard language.

Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-In-Chief verifies that the manuscript fits the requirements of the journal for originality and intrigue. If not, the document might be dismissed without undergoing another evaluation.

Review process conducted

The reviewer plans time to go over the article more than once. The first reading shapes one's initial opinion of the text. If at this stage some significant issues are found with the article, the reviewer might feel comfortable dismissing it without further investigation. If not, they will go over the text again and take notes in order to produce a comprehensive, point-by-point analysis. After that, the review is submitted to the journal, which either recommends accepting it or rejecting it, or returns it along with a request for correction (usually indicated as major or minor) before reviewing it once again.

Revising

When making changes to your manuscript and addressing feedback from peer reviewers:

•     Attend to every point the editor and reviewers have raised.
•     In the email you reply, detail the changes you made to your manuscript.
•     Indicate the major changes in the text clearly. You may do this by using Microsoft Word's Track Changes feature or by using a different color for the text and underlining the changes.
•     Return the updated manuscript to the editor within the deadline specified.

Editor Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor considers each of the returning reviews while making a final decision. If the reviews differ greatly, the editor may request a second reviewer so that they can have a second opinion before making a decision.

Decision about the manuscript

The editor emails the decision to the author along with any relevant reviewer feedback. Depending on the kind of peer review the journal uses, the comments may or may not be anonymous.

The paper will proceed to production if it is approved. We will provide feedback to the author if the article is rejected. If the referee makes any changes or returns the work for significant or minor revision, the handling editor should provide the author with helpful feedback from the reviewers. It is now appropriate to send reviewers an email or letter informing them of the results of their review. Reviewers should anticipate receiving a revised version of the article if it was returned for revision, unless they have chosen not to participate in further rounds of review. However, the handling editor may carry out this follow-up review if only minor modifications were needed.