Peer Review Process & Editorial Quality Control

Scientific Research Journal (SciRJ) maintains a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity. Our review panel consists of global experts who evaluate manuscripts based on originality, methodological validity, and contribution to the field.

SciRJ Manuscript Workflow

Step 1: Submission & Screening

Plagiarism check (Turnitin/iThenticate/PlagiarismDetector)

↓

Step 2: Editorial Review

Relevance and Scope Verification

↓

Step 3: Expert Peer Review

Double-Blind evaluation by 2+ reviewers

↓

Quality Assurance & Reviewer Standards

Conflict of Interest verification for all reviewers.
Strict adherence to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
Scoring based on Technical Depth, Novelty, and Language.

↓

Step 5: Revision & Final Decision

Author incorporates feedback

↓

Step 6: Publication & DOI Assignment

Final typesetting and library indexing

Detailed Stages of the Review Cycle

1. Initial Desk Review & Plagiarism Screening

Manuscripts must have a similarity index below 15% (Turnitin/iThenticate/PlagiarismDetector) and align with the journal's scope to proceed. Manuscripts failing this stage are rejected immediately.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

The manuscript is sent to at least two independent subject matter experts. Reviewers evaluate methodology, statistical validity, and contribution to the field without knowing the author's identity.

3. Editorial Quality Assurance & Decision

Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor issues a decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Reviewers must provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.

4. Author Revisions & Final Approval

Authors address comments and submit a revised manuscript with a "Response to Reviewers" document. Only after final academic acceptance is the publication fee requested.

Ethics & Transparency Disclosure

SciRJ follows the COPE Core Practices. Our reviewer panel consists of PhD-level researchers and industry specialists. Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest and adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Timely feedback (typically 2-3 weeks for the first round).
Constructive criticism to help authors improve their work.
Absolute confidentiality of the manuscript throughout the process.

Interested in joining our Reviewer Board?

Apply to become a Reviewer →