Peer Review Process

All submissions will undergo a rigorous peer-reviewed process. It includes several stages, including the initial check, peer review process, decision making, appeal and complaint.

 

Initial check

Once receiving a new submission, the in-house managing editor will initially check the article structure for completeness and the similarity report. Then, all the materials will be passed to the academic editor (Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board Members) for initial review, such as the fitness of their research area with the journal’s scope, the scientific value of the work, and completeness of the research. Only those that pass the initial check will move on to the next stage.

 

Peer review process

There will be more than two external independent experts invited with at least two valid review reports collected for one manuscript undergoing a double anonymous review process. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest, and they are encouraged to recommend other experts to serve as reviewers if there is potential conflict of interest (please refer to the Conflict of Interest policy). Both the information of reviewers and authors is anonymous to each other. Editors must not disclose any personal privacy to other parties.

There will be more than three external independent experts invited with at least three valid review reports collected for one manuscript undergoing a single anonymous review process. Authors’ information is open to reviewers, but reviewers are anonymous to authors. Editors and reviewers are prohibited from disclosing authors’ information to other parties.

 

Decision making

All review reports will be collected by the academic editor to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision combining his/her own opinion and that of all the reviewers.

 

Accept submission: The submission can be accepted with a few or no revisions. Then it will be copy-edited and type-set in the production stage.

 

Revisions required: Authors must revise their manuscript following reviewers’ suggestions. Usually, authors should spend no more than 14 days to prepare and submit the revision file. If more time is needed, authors must apply to the editor in advance.

 

Resubmit for review: Major revisions are needed and a new review round will be initiated. Authors should modify their manuscript with more details according to the reviewers’ comments. For a new review round, the same or different reviewers will be invited on a case-by-case basis. Usually, if the revision takes more than two months, authors are recommended to resubmit the manuscript.

 

Decline submission: The manuscript will be rejected, usually due to major flaws.

 

 

Appeal and complaint

Authors have the right to appeal against an inappropriate review decision within 14 days of receiving the decision or complain about potential peer review ethics. The appeal/complaint email is always open at editorial@piscomed.com. An investigating group will be organized to review the whole editorial process. Concerns or complaints about possible allegations submitted to the journal will be dealt with promptly and appropriately according to the procedure set out in the COPE on complaints.