General Principles
Science Insights is committed to a peer-review process that is fair, independent, confidential and based on scholarly considerations. The purpose of peer review is to assist editors in evaluating the quality and suitability of submitted manuscripts and to provide authors with constructive scholarly feedback.
Peer review is an important component of editorial evaluation, but reviewer recommendations do not themselves constitute an editorial decision. Responsibility for the final decision on a manuscript rests with the journal's authorized editor or editorial team.
Peer Review Model
Journals published by Science Insights generally operate a double-blind peer-review process, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process.
Authors should prepare manuscripts in accordance with the requirements of the relevant journal and should avoid including information in the review version of a manuscript that unnecessarily reveals their identity where anonymous review is required.
The specific peer-review arrangements applicable to a manuscript may also be described in the editorial information or author guidelines of the relevant journal.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Submitted manuscripts may undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review. This assessment may consider the manuscript's relevance to the journal, scholarly quality, originality, presentation, compliance with submission requirements and adherence to applicable ethical standards.
A manuscript may be declined without external peer review where the editor determines that it is outside the scope of the journal, does not meet appropriate scholarly or editorial standards, or has significant ethical or submission-related concerns.
Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers should be selected on the basis of relevant subject expertise and their ability to provide an independent and appropriate assessment of the manuscript. Editors may also consider experience, availability and potential conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers.
The selection and invitation of reviewers remain an editorial responsibility. A reviewer should not be selected where a relationship or competing interest could reasonably be expected to compromise the independence of the review.
Author-Suggested Reviewers
Where permitted by the relevant journal, authors may suggest individuals who they consider suitable to review their manuscript. Authors should provide accurate information about suggested reviewers and should not suggest individuals where a personal, professional, institutional or other relationship could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, reviewer independence.
Suggestions provided by authors are advisory only. Editors are under no obligation to invite a suggested reviewer and may independently verify reviewer identity, expertise and suitability before issuing an invitation.
Authors must not attempt to manipulate the peer-review process by providing false reviewer identities, fabricated contact details or other misleading information.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. Comments should be relevant to the scholarly work and should be expressed constructively and respectfully.
Reviewers should consider, where relevant, the originality, methodology, analysis, interpretation, presentation and significance of the work. They should identify important concerns, unsupported conclusions or relevant scholarly literature that may require consideration.
A reviewer who does not have appropriate expertise to evaluate a manuscript, cannot complete the review within a reasonable period, or identifies a significant conflict of interest should inform the editorial office and decline the invitation where appropriate.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts and associated materials provided for peer review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, distribute or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.
Unpublished information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, professional or commercial advantage or for the disadvantage of authors or other parties.
Reviewers should not transfer a manuscript to another person or involve another individual in preparing a review without prior authorization from the journal or editorial office.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers and editors should disclose financial, professional, personal, academic or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived to influence their participation in the peer-review process.
Where a conflict could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality, the individual concerned should normally not participate in the relevant review or editorial decision.
Further requirements are described in the Conflicts of Interest Policy .
Review Reports
Peer-review reports should provide a reasoned and constructive assessment that assists both editors and authors. Reviewers should distinguish major scholarly concerns from minor matters of presentation and should provide sufficient explanation for significant recommendations.
Reviews should address the manuscript rather than the personal characteristics of its authors. Offensive, discriminatory, defamatory or otherwise inappropriate comments are not acceptable.
Editors may disregard or request revision of a review report where it is unprofessional, irrelevant, insufficiently substantiated or inconsistent with appropriate standards of scholarly review.
Editorial Decisions
Editors consider reviewer reports together with their own assessment of the manuscript and any relevant ethical or editorial considerations. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not bind the editor to a particular decision.
Depending on the journal and the circumstances of the submission, an editorial decision may include acceptance, a request for revision, further review or rejection.
The time required to reach an editorial decision may vary according to reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the extent of revisions required and other circumstances relevant to proper editorial assessment.
Revised Manuscripts
Where revision is requested, authors should carefully consider the editorial and reviewer comments and provide an appropriate response explaining how the comments have been addressed or, where a suggested change has not been made, the reasons for that decision.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, evaluated by different reviewers, or assessed directly by an editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revision.
A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee that the manuscript will ultimately be accepted for publication.
Misconduct in Peer Review
Science Insights does not tolerate manipulation of the peer-review process. Concerns may include false reviewer identities, fabricated reviews, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate influence on reviewers, unauthorized disclosure of manuscripts or other conduct intended to compromise the independence or integrity of peer review.
Credible concerns may be investigated and may result in appropriate editorial action. Where necessary, relevant institutions or other appropriate bodies may be contacted.
Further information is provided in the Research Integrity and Misconduct Policy .
Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that a significant error, procedural problem or relevant information was not appropriately considered may submit an appeal or complaint in accordance with the applicable procedure.
An appeal does not guarantee that an editorial decision will be changed. Appeals should identify the specific basis for reconsideration and should be supported by relevant information.
Detailed information is available in the Complaints and Appeals Policy .