All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo single-blind peer review (independent of paper types) and the reviewers remain anonymous. The peer review process is organised in such a way that all submitted papers undergo initial quality in-house checks and scope and relevance checks by Section Editors or Editors in Chief (depending on the scope/nature of content) after which they are forwarded to Editorial Board Members for review coordination. They will collect external peer review reports, request author revisions (peer-review again whenever necessary), before making the final decision on publication or rejection.
A more detailed description of the process is available below:
All manuscripts are submitted and reviewed through the ReView submission system (hosted by River Valley Technology). At the time of submission the authors can suggest or oppose reviewers for their manuscript. The selection of the reviewers is solely at the discretion of the handling Editorial Board member that coordinates the review process and the suggestions do not oblige them in their choice of reviewers.
Once a manuscript is submitted it undergoes initial quality checks at our internal editorial office to ensure its compliance with journal’s ethical and publishing standards, including relevant metadata, author affiliations and reference lists. Articles that pass the initial assessment stage, and are within the scope of the journal, are analysed for plagiarism using iThenticate. Reports are sent to Section Editors and respective Editorial Board members handling the submission to use in their assessment of the manuscript.
Manuscripts are then handled by the relevant Section Editor or Editor in Chief (depending on the scope/nature of content) who determine if the paper is in scope and suitable for peer review.
If a paper passes this stage, Editorial Board member is assigned to handle the peer review process and make the final editorial decision. The Editorial Board member can decide to return the papers to authors before formal peer review or can assign independent external peer reviewers.
Each paper aims to have a minimum of two review reports gathered. The Editorial Board Member reviews the reports received and makes the final editorial decision. After peer review the decisions that can be reached are:
If the Editorial Board Member recommends rejection, the paper returns to the authors with the reviewers’ comments and the paper is no longer considered by the journal.
A paper that receives a revise decision also receives the reviewers reports often with Editorial recommendations on how to improve the work so it can be reconsidered at the journal.
Authors are encouraged to address the peer reviewers’ concerns and resubmit.
If the Editor recommends an accept decision, the paper moves forward to copyediting, proofreading and typesetting before publication. All authors of the paper are notified of acceptance.
Section Editors and the Editor in Chief may also be called upon for appeals or other issues requiring additional editorial input and guidance.
Editorial articles are not subjected to peer review process. Supplementary material is presented to reviewers along with the manuscript but they are not required to comment on it.
In dealing with complaints and appeals IntechOpen follows Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. Should the authors wish to file a complaint regarding the editorial decision for their article, they need to send an appeal letter detailing the reasons for potential editorial decision overturn. This includes a detailed response to the reviewer’s and Editor’s comments. Should the statement substantiate, the Editors might consider another round or review or submitting a revised manuscript. Once appealed the article can not enter another appeal cycle and the editorial decision is final. An author or a reader may wish to file a complaint or raise a concern in regards to the peer review process, the journal staff, editorial board, or the publisher. The complaint should be submitted in the form of a document, outlining the detailed reasons for such an action. All appeals and complaints should be sent to Ms. Natalia Reinic Babic, Head of Journal Publishing and Open Science at email@example.com