Home » Peer review

Peer review

• Rigorous, constructive, efficient, and transparent
• Independent review followed by final decision from the EIC.
• Identity transparency: single anonymized: reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to the decision-making editor
• Reviewers interact with the editors and the authors
• Review information published: reviewer identities, editor identities
• Average time from submission to final decision:

How it works

Peer review is handled by active researchers, carefully appointed to our editorial boards according to strict excellence criteria, and who certify the validity of research with their names on the published article.

We believe peer review must be centered on objective criteria for the validity and quality of the work presented. It should be rigorous, fair, constructive, accountable, and transparent for everyone involved. Last, but not least, the process needs to be efficient.

To achieve this, we developed a unique, award-winning collaborative review forum that unites authors, reviewers, and the handling editor online and brings the highest quality service to all participants. We continuously innovate to provide cutting-edge tools and services for an efficient peer review.

All submissions, including those that are part of themed Research Topic article collections, undergo the same rigorous review process.

Principles of peer review

ConductScience Academic Publishing House holds itself to exacting standards when it comes to the manuscripts it considers for publication. With a steadfast commitment to quality, our dedicated teams rigorously evaluate submissions against clear criteria throughout the peer review process. Manuscripts meeting these criteria are accepted, while those falling short are regrettably declined. Our approach eschews arbitrary rejection rates or considerations of potential impact, focusing solely on the merit and validity of the research presented.

At ConductScience, we entrust handling editors and reviewers with the authority to recommend rejection as they see fit. Ultimately, acceptance decisions rest with editors, while chief editors retain the final say on both acceptances and rejections. To further ensure the integrity of our publications, our in-house research integrity team conducts thorough pre- and post-review quality assessments. Articles failing to meet our stringent acceptance criteria, outlined below, may be rejected at any stage of the process. This comprehensive model guarantees robust peer review, swift decision-making, and the dissemination of only the highest caliber research.

What is expected of everyone involved?

• Authors must submit a manuscript that has significant scholarly value and falls within the scope of the journal. They must comply with all editorial and ethical policies and take all reviewer and editor comments into consideration.
• Reviewers are subject experts and evaluate manuscripts by using the quality assessment tool and designated review questionnaire that prioritize scientific quality, rigor, and validity. They evaluate the methodology of a study for solidity and rigor, and ensure the research provides valid conclusions and is supported by sufficient data.
• Editors are subject experts and assess the peer-review process and manuscripts meticulously. They only endorse publication if the reviewers validate the contents of a manuscript.

Our peer review team serves as the cornerstone of support and guidance for Chief editors, handling editors, reviewers, and authors alike. With a steadfast dedication to maintaining excellence, our team ensures that manuscripts and the peer review process adhere to the highest quality standards. We certify the scientific rigor, validity, and overall quality of research articles, fostering collaboration among authors, reviewers, and editors.

In instances where uncertainty arises for an editor, reviewer, or author during the peer-review process, our peer review team stands as the primary point of contact for guidance. Comprising two specialized sub-teams—research integrity and editorial review operations—we provide comprehensive assistance tailored to the specific needs of each situation.

Manuscript quality standards

Our research integrity team is steadfast in upholding the highest standards of quality and ethics in the manuscripts we consider for publication. Their diligent efforts ensure that all submissions meet stringent research and ethical criteria, thereby safeguarding the integrity of our publications.

Should any concerns regarding the quality or integrity of a manuscript arise at any stage before official publication, our processes are designed to address them promptly and thoroughly. Whether it’s a matter of failing to meet our editorial standards, concerns raised during peer review, or issues related to research integrity, our Chief editors and ConductScience Academic Publishing’s Chief Executive Editor will investigate without hesitation. This commitment to scrutiny ensures that only the most reputable and credible research reaches our readership, regardless of the stage of the publication process.

Peer review quality standards

Our editorial review operations team ensures a high quality, rigorous, and efficient peer-review process for all manuscripts submitted to ConductScience Academic Publishing House. The team establishes and upholds the peer-review guidelines for editors, reviewers, and authors, which incorporate the best practices and editorial policies.

The team is responsible for upholding the following quality standards:

• Editors and reviewers are experts in the subject of the manuscript, with necessary expertise to evaluate the research by having established a sufficient research work or publication record on the same or related research area
• Editors and reviewers have no relationship to the authors and/or research that would affect the objectivity of the peer-review process
• In case the peer review is ongoing, and it is discovered that editors or reviewers do not have the relevant expertise or have a conflict-of-interest, they can be revoked and replaced during review by the peer review team and/or the editor
• In case editors or reviewers inappropriately request the citation of their own published papers or the journal’s (coercive citations), they can be revoked and replaced during review
• Reviewers thoroughly complete the subject-specific questionnaire provided to assess the scientific rigor, quality, and validity of the manuscript they are reviewing. Review reports are verified to ensure they provide a constructive assessment of the manuscripts’ validity and quality to the authors
• Final editorial checks to verify that the peer-review process adhered to the quality standards, that the reviewers’ and editor’s concerns have been addressed, and that the manuscript is ready for publication
• Only high-quality manuscripts that pass our acceptance criteria (listed above) are published.

In accepting a peer-review assignment with ConductScience Academic Publishing House, editors and reviewers agree to:

• have the necessary expertise to judge the manuscript’s quality, rigor, and validity
• submit thorough, high-quality review reports
• provide feedback in a timely manner, remaining responsive to collaborate with the authors
• behave in a professional, ethical way and be constructive during interactions with the editors, authors, and editorial team
• abide by ethical publishing practices and refrain from requesting the addition of citations of their own articles, or the journal’s articles (coercive citations), unless valid and justifiable academic reasons are conveyed.

As part of our quality standards, such practices will be monitored and may result in editors and reviewers being revoked from assignments and editorial board membership.

In cases where an editor or reviewer fails to disclose relevant collaborations that could compromise their ability to provide an impartial review, or if they are found to have manipulated the peer-review process through deceptive means such as using fake identities or coordinating with others to expedite reviews (known as a peer-review ring), decisive action will be taken.

In parallel, for manuscripts to remain under consideration for publication, the authors must:

• remain engaged with the peer-review process and responsive for queries from the editors, reviewers, or ConductScience Academic Publishing House’ editorial office
• behave in a professional way, use constructive, respectful language when communicating with the editorial board members, reviewers, or the editorial office, and collaborate effectively during the peer-review process.

Participants in the peer review will be removed from their assignments if they do not adhere to and meet these review standards. Manuscripts can also be rejected should the authors be unresponsive for an extended period of time (30 days) or use inappropriate, offensive language when communicating with the editorial board members or ConductScience Academic Publishing House’ editorial office.

Pillars of peer review

Collaborative review

Our collaborative review forum unites authors, reviewers, and the handling editor (called the associate editor for editorial board members, or topic editor for Research Topics) – and if need be, the specialty chief editor – in a direct online dialogue, enabling quick iterations and facilitating consensus. Editors and reviewers work with the authors to improve their manuscript.

Objective review

ConductScience Academic Publishing House places a strong emphasis on maintaining a clear distinction between review and evaluation processes. Our editors and reviewers are entrusted with the responsibility of impartially assessing manuscripts based on objective criteria, ensuring that the study’s quality, rigor, and validity are thoroughly evaluated. Our commitment to publishing papers deemed valid and of high quality remains unwavering.

Reviewers are empowered to recommend rejection solely on the basis of objective errors and predefined criteria for rejection. Assessments of a paper’s significance can be made transparently through open post-publication reviews. Additionally, we utilize objective impact metrics, which reflect the collective opinion of the scientific community, to highlight remarkable discoveries. This approach underscores our dedication to promoting transparency, fairness, and the dissemination of impactful research.

Rigorous review

ConductScience Academic Publishing House provides a review questionnaire template to make reviews systematic and convene the efforts of reviewers on objective issues. The review must focus solely on the quality of both the research and the manuscript, and must aim at providing constructive comments to bring the final paper to its best quality. This allows fair, rapid, comprehensive, and comparable assessment of research. The evaluation of the research will be done successively by means of the article-level impact metrics. Moreover, ConductScience Academic Publishing House provides authors with the highest quality review service by assigning only the world’s top researchers to the ConductScience Academic Publishing House’ chief and associate editorial boards.

Transparent review

To guarantee the most rigorous and objective reviews, the identities of reviewers remain anonymous during the review period. When a manuscript is accepted for publication, the names of the reviewers who endorsed its publication appear on the published article, without exceptions. If a reviewer recommends rejection or withdraws during any stage of this process, their name will not be disclosed. The handling editor’s name is also made public on the published article, acknowledging their contribution.

As a result of this process, reviews are conducted constructively, with editors and reviewers holding a level of accountability and responsibility for the paper by providing rigorous feedback that delivers the highest possible quality publication. Please also note that, as ConductScience Academic Publishing House operates a single anonymized peer review process, the authors’ identities are known to the reviewers.

Efficient review

ConductScience Academic Publishing House’ publishing platform is custom-built. We offer one of the fastest systems among academic publishers.

Thanks to the streamlined workflow facilitated by our platform, we have successfully reduced the average time from submission to final decision to an impressive 61 days. This commitment to efficiency allows us to uphold rigorous standards while expediting the dissemination of groundbreaking research to the academic community.

Full peer review guidelines

All article types undergo a full peer review, except for Editorials, Classifications, and Grand Challenges.

The full collaborative peer review process consists of two phases:

• Independent review
  During the independent review phase, the reviewers assess the manuscript independently from each other and from the authors, according to a standardized review template. These templates are adapted to each article type.
• Interactive review
  During the interactive review phase, authors and reviewers can interact with each other through real-time comments in the discussion forum – with the aim of addressing all concerns about the manuscript. The handling editor oversees the review process, and, if required, the specialty chief editor can also enter the review forum.

Post-submission steps

Upon submission of a manuscript, our editorial office initiates a pre-screening process to ensure adherence to ConductScience Academic Publishing House’s rigorous standards of research integrity and quality. Manuscripts meeting these criteria proceed to the next stage.

An editor specializing in the relevant field is then assigned to oversee the peer-review process. Following a preliminary content evaluation, the editor determines whether to advance the manuscript for formal review or to recommend immediate rejection to the specialty chief editor.

In the latter case, the specialty chief editor may confirm the handling editor’s recommendation of immediate rejection due to the following reasons:

• Objective errors in the methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in the manuscript that prevent further consideration
• Ethical issues were identified in the manuscript that prevent further review or publication
• The manuscript does not fulfill the standards established for the journal to be considered for publication (see full rejection criteria above).

The specialty chief editor may, nevertheless, override the handling editor’s recommendation and decide that the manuscript deserves being reviewed before a final decision is made. In this case they will assign the manuscript to a new handling editor for another assessment.

The handling editor invites experts to review the manuscript; most article types require at least two reviewers to complete a review. These reviewers can either be invited from the board of review editors or appropriately recruited among experts in the field.

Handling editors: reviewer invitations

If a manuscript is sent for peer review, the handling editor is accountable for inviting and overseeing expert reviewers. Most article types require at least two reviewers to complete a review. These reviewers can either be invited from the board of review editors or appropriately recruited among experts in the field.

It is the prerogative of a handling editor to manage the reviewer recommendations of a manuscript. When the reviewers make their recommendation – to reject, revise, or accept the manuscript – the handling editor must validate this decision in line with our clearly defined acceptance and rejection criteria (see above).

If the handling editor disagrees with the final recommendation of a reviewer, whether it is to reject or accept the manuscript, it is the handling editor who is afforded the right to seek further expert feedback and invite an additional reviewer(s).

We are confident in the quality of our editors and peer-review process, whose proficiency has enabled ConductScience Academic Publishing House’ open access publications to become one of the most highly cited in the world.

Author triggered arbitration

If a dispute arises regarding the rejection of a manuscript, the authors may rebut the decision and trigger an arbitration.

Authors should provide enough information as part of their rebuttal so that an informed decision can be made on whether the grievance is valid. For example, if a rebuttal relates to lack of ethics approval, an author should provide a letter obtained from the relevant ethics committee as part of the rebuttal. Rebuttals should be factual and constructive. We will not consider rebuttals that contain inappropriate or derogatory language.

As a first step, the editorial office will arbitrate. They may discuss the case with editors and reviewers to try and resolve the dispute, depending on the peer review stage where rejection occurs and the reasons for rejection. At the discretion of the editorial office, independent experts may also be called for confidential arbitration evaluation. This process can include an assessment of rebuttal validity and/or the peer review process.

Depending on case complexity, authors should expect the arbitration process to take anywhere from a few weeks to several months. While a decision can take a significant amount of time, authors should anticipate receiving updates every 2–4 weeks.

Should an arbitration rule in favor of the authors, the editorial office will consider reinstating a manuscript to the stage where the rejection occurred and/or restarting the peer review process with a newly appointed editor and/or reviewer(s).

A manuscript will remain rejected if the arbitration rules that any of the above rejection criteria are met. While arbitration for a rejected manuscript is ongoing, authors should not submit a revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewer triggered arbitration

In our peer-review process, reviewers have the authority to initiate arbitration if they believe that authors are hesitant to implement necessary changes as advised during the peer-review process. While reviewers retain the option to recommend rejection or withdraw from the review process, their identity remains confidential in both scenarios.

However, if a reviewer decides to withdraw, necessitating the recruitment of a replacement, this may inevitably slow down the peer-review process. Therefore, authors are strongly encouraged to cooperate fully in addressing reviewers’ concerns to mitigate delays.

In the event of arbitration, should the ruling favor the authors, the manuscript may be accepted even if it had previously received a recommendation for rejection. This underscores our commitment to fairness and ensuring that valid research receives due consideration, irrespective of past assessments.

Manuscript acceptance

If the reviewers endorse the publication of the manuscript in its current form, they must finalize their review reports, which automatically notifies the handling editor. For acceptance to be considered, the manuscript must:

• be VALID as defined in the acceptance criteria above
• have an editor and the minimum number of independent reviewers assigned for the article type
• be endorsed by a majority of the assigned, non-withdrawn reviewers.

The editor can then either accept the final version of the manuscript or request further changes as necessary, typically within a few days. Acceptance of a manuscript can be decided by the handling editor and does not require the approval of the specialty chief editor.

Acceptance by the handling editor moves the article into the final validation phase, during which ConductScience Academic Publishing House’ peer review team performs final technical and quality checks, including whether the review was performed adequately. Should the manuscript fail the final checks, it can either be put back into review to address the identified issue(s) or else the provisional acceptance decision can be overridden and the manuscript will be rejected at this stage without publication.

The article processing charge (APC) is payable within 30 days of acceptance and is required before final publication of the manuscript.

Manuscript rejection

In cases where the minimum required number of reviewers to endorse a manuscript is not met (typically two, constituting a majority), it becomes the responsibility of the handling editor to advise the specialty chief editor to reject the manuscript for publication. While the final decision to reject the manuscript is typically made by the specialty chief editor, it can alternatively be determined by the research integrity team, adhering to the rejection criteria outlined earlier.

In the event of rejection, no article processing charge (APC) or any other fee is levied on the authors. This policy ensures fairness and transparency in our editorial process, prioritizing the quality and integrity of published research above all else.

Short peer review guidelines

Two article types, Editorials and Classifications, undergo a shortened peer review.

Short peer reviews differ from full peer reviews in two aspects: they are directly forwarded to the interactive review phase and they may be reviewed by the handling editor alone. It is up to the editor’s consideration if further reviewers are invited to the review process.

Therefore, following submission, an editor of the relevant ConductScience Academic Publishing House specialty is immediately invited to take on the manuscript editorial assignment, which encompasses the role of the reviewer, too. Since no independent review report is required, the manuscript enters the interactive review phase immediately.

Interactive review, manuscript acceptance, and rejection follow the same rules as for full peer reviews.

Publication ethics

ConductScience Academic Publishing House takes issues relating to publication ethics very seriously. ConductScience Academic Publishing House endeavors to follow the guidelines and best practice recommendations published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). ConductScience Academic Publishing House follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines including its recommended authorship criteria.

Authors are expected to abide by ethical standards in regard to the attribution of authorship, conflicts of interest, respect of ethical considerations in the use of experimental animal and human participants, financial support disclosures, and participation in the peer review process. Additionally, cases of invalid or fraudulent data, plagiarism, and dual submissions will constitute grounds for rejection.

ConductScience Academic Publishing House editors and reviewers are also expected to abide by ethical standards in regard to conflicts of interest, confidentiality of the reviewed papers, objective evaluation of the work, and preservation of reviewers’ anonymity until acceptance, in addition to refraining from coercive citation. Editors bear the authority and responsibility for the acceptance of papers.

While ConductScience Academic Publishing House strives for transparency regarding the identity of reviewers and editors, the external posting of review reports or discussions from the review process is strictly prohibited. As contributions made to the interactive review process come from a number of different parties, the decision to share these contributions are not the reserve of any one party.

External reviewers

At ConductScience Academic Publishing House, external reviewers are expected to possess a PhD or an equivalent qualification, or demonstrate a comparable level of expertise gained through equivalent years of experience in the relevant research field. Additionally, reviewers are encouraged to have prior experience in scientific publishing, either as authors or reviewers themselves.

Recognizing the importance of nurturing early career researchers, ConductScience Academic Publishing House is committed to providing them with opportunities to engage in the peer-review process. To support their development, early career researchers are welcomed to collaborate with a senior researcher during the review process. For guidance on how to facilitate such collaborations, interested parties are encouraged to reach out to the editorial office for assistance. We believe that fostering these collaborations can enrich the peer-review process while providing invaluable learning experiences for emerging scholars.

Editorial policies

Conflicts of interest

ConductScience Academic Publishing House is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes publication malpractice and conflicts of interest very seriously. Personal, financial, and professional affiliations or relationships can be perceived as conflicts of interest. All authors and all members of ConductScience Academic Publishing House’ editorial boards are required to disclose any actual and potential conflicts of interest at submission or upon accepting an editorial or review assignment.

Our review system is designed to guarantee transparent and objective editorial and review process, and because handling editor and reviewers’ names are made public upon the publication of articles, conflicts of interest will be openly apparent.

Authors

Authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest during the submission process. Consider the following questions and make sure you disclose any positive answers.

Potential conflicts of interest: authors

Did you or your institution at any time receive payment or services from a third party for any aspect of the submitted work?

Do you have financial relationships with entities that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work?

Do you have any patents and copyrights, whether pending, issued, licensed, and/or receiving royalties, related to the research?

Do you have other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work?

If you can answer yes to any of the questions below, ConductScience Academic Publishing House considers this to be a potential conflict of interest. Such potential conflicts might be between the editor and authors, the reviewers and authors, or the reviewers and editors. Editors are recommended to invite independent reviewers from a broad range of institutional and geographic locations to promote diversity of thought and to ensure an objective and fair peer review process.