Peer Review Policy

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review. The editorial team considers factors such as the journal's scope, relevance of the subject matter, basic scholarly suitability, manuscript completeness, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements or fall outside the journal's scope may not proceed to external peer review.

Reviewer Selection

When a manuscript is considered suitable for peer review, appropriate reviewers may be invited based on their subject knowledge, research experience, and relevant academic or professional expertise. Reviewers should be selected with consideration for potential conflicts of interest and their ability to provide an independent assessment of the manuscript.

Double-Blind Peer Review Assessment

ScienceForecast follows a double-blind peer-review model. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts without access to the identities of the authors, and authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers during the peer-review process. Reviewers are generally asked to assess the scientific quality, originality, clarity, methodology, interpretation of results, relevance to the journal, and overall contribution of the manuscript. Reviewers may provide comments for the authors as well as confidential recommendations or comments for the editor where appropriate.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for peer review should be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes. Editorial and reviewer communications should also be handled confidentially.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments. Reviewers should identify relevant issues that may affect the quality or interpretation of the work and should avoid personal criticism of authors. Reviewers should disclose any conflict of interest and should decline the assignment when they cannot provide an impartial assessment.

Author Responsibilities

Authors are expected to respond carefully and professionally to reviewer comments when revisions are requested. Revised manuscripts should clearly indicate the changes made and, where appropriate, provide a response explaining how individual reviewer comments were addressed. Authors may provide a reasoned explanation when they do not agree with a particular recommendation.

Revision and Resubmission

A manuscript may be returned to the authors for revision following peer review. Depending on the extent of the revisions and the editorial assessment, a revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor. Additional rounds of revision may be requested when necessary to address substantive issues.

Editorial Decisions

Following editorial assessment and peer review, the editor may decide to accept the manuscript, request revision, decline the manuscript, or take another appropriate editorial action. The final decision is the responsibility of the journal's editorial team and is based on the available scholarly and editorial information.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers should disclose any personal, professional, financial, institutional, or other relationships that could affect or reasonably appear to affect their assessment of a manuscript. Where a significant conflict exists, an alternative editor or reviewer may be considered.

Reviewer Anonymity

Reviewer identities are kept confidential from authors throughout the double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers should not disclose their involvement in reviewing a manuscript or communicate directly with authors about the review without authorization from the editorial office. Authors should likewise avoid including unnecessary identifying information in manuscript files submitted for double-blind review.

Ethical and Research Integrity Concerns

If reviewers or editors identify potential concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, conflicts of interest, or other ethical matters, the manuscript may be referred for further editorial consideration. Additional information or clarification may be requested from the authors where appropriate.

Independence of Peer Review

Editorial and peer-review decisions are intended to be independent of commercial considerations. Article Processing Charges, waiver requests, institutional affiliation, or an author's ability to pay publication charges should not determine the scholarly assessment or editorial decision on a manuscript.

Peer Review Inquiries

Questions concerning the peer-review process, reviewer comments, manuscript revisions, or other editorial matters may be directed to the ScienceForecast Editorial Office through the contact information provided on the website.