Schole follows a double-blind review process. All manuscripts submitted to our journals are peer-reviewed by experts strictly and thoroughly. To ensure the rigor, fairness, and effectiveness of peer review, our peer reviewers are expected to familiarize themselves with the best practices of peer review, and with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Requirements for reviewers
The reviewers should:
(1) hold a Ph.D or be a Ph.D candidate;
(2) work in institutions of higher learning or research institutes;
(3) be a prolific writer of research papers in the field of the submitted manuscript;
(4) have no conflict of interest with the authors of the manuscript;
(5) remain responsive throughout the peer review.
Guidelines for reviewers
We ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased (double-blind) and timely.
The potential and active reviewers are identified based on author suggestion and the bibliographical knowledge.
The reviewers’ evaluations and comments play a crucial role in taking the final decision on the manuscript in consultation with the editors and considering multiple contributing factors such as the relevance and impact of the research work. For this we adhere to the COPE guidelines. Reviewers can decline to comments if they find any conflict of interest with the manuscript.
The reviewers are encouraged to be in contact with the assigning Editor. Sensitive issues such as conflict of interest, plagiarism, published data need to be submitted to the assigning Editor whereas the recommendations and critical evaluations regarding the content of the manuscript needs to be submitted to both the editor and the author.
The process of review and recommendations are confidential since the unpublished manuscripts are classified in nature. Review needs to focus mainly on improving the scientific merit of the manuscript and needs to be very objective in nature.
The review comments should have sufficient clarity with supporting references. Please include the strength, weakness, relevance and impact of the research work as well as the originality of the presentation.
Finally the extent of suitability or likelihood of the publication of manuscript needs to be mentioned. The editor can forward the review comments to the other potential reviewers also in addition to the authors. Reviewer should not cite the unpublished manuscript.
Supplementary material is subjected to peer review.
Editorials and Biographies do not undergo peer review.
In case of editors as manuscript authors, editors shall not review and process their own academic paper. Submitted manuscripts written by editors will be assigned to at least two international independent external reviewers. Decisions will be made by other Editorial Board Members who do not have conflicts of interests with the author. The proportion of the submissions authored by editors should not exceed 20% of the total submissions.
Reviewer report
The reviewer report should assess the manuscript comprehensively, and provide constructive comments on how to improve the manuscript, particularly where revisions are recommended. In the report, reviewers should focus on the following points:
The title and content is within the scope of the journal.
The information provided is relevant to the wide readership of the journal.
All the sections within the manuscript such as title, abstract, key words, methods and conclusions are consistent with the objective of the paper.
The writing is easy to comprehend.
The methodology is clear and easy to be repeated by another researcher. The methodology has consent and ethical approvals as and when appropriate and applicable. The analytical and statistical methods are appropriate and relevant to the study. The findings and conclusions are adequately supported by the data.
The references adequately represent the data and interpretations are up to date without missing on key citable information.
Recommended decisions
At the end of their review, reviewers need to provide an overall recommendation for the next processing stage of the manuscript:
Accept
The article can be accepted without any further revision.
Accept after minor revision
The article can be accepted for publication in principle, after it is properly revised according to the reviewer comments. The revised article will not be sent to the reviewers again.
Accept after major revision
The article can have a good opportunity of being accepted for publication, after it is significantly modified according to the reviewer comments. The authors need to respond to the comments point by point, or provide a clear response if they disagree with some comments. Normally, only one round of major revision is allowed. The revised article will be sent to the reviewers for another round of review. The major revisions should be completed within a suitable period.
Reject
The article should be rejected due to the technical flaws, e.g., the lack of contribution of the research content.
The recommended decisions are visible only to our editors, not to the authors.
Competing Interests
Although conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before review. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.