• PEER REVIEW PROCESS

    Peer Review Process

    Science, Education and Innovations in the Context of Modern Problems (SEI) applies a double-blind peer review system to ensure the quality, integrity, and impartial evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

    In this model, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to minimize bias and ensure objective assessment based solely on academic merit.

    Review Procedure

    1. Initial Editorial Screening

    All submissions are first evaluated by the editorial office to assess:

    • Relevance to the journal’s scope
    • Compliance with submission guidelines
    • Overall academic quality

    Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be declined without external review.

    2. Ethical and Similarity Assessment

    Submissions undergo similarity screening using recognized tools (e.g., iThenticate or equivalent software) to identify potential issues related to:

    • Plagiarism or redundant publication
    • Improper citation or attribution
    • Ethical concerns

    Manuscripts raising ethical concerns may be returned to authors or rejected in accordance with editorial policies.

    3. Reviewer Assignment

    Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

    Reviewers are selected to ensure the absence of conflicts of interest and to maintain the integrity of the evaluation process.

    4. Peer Review Evaluation

    Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

    • Originality and contribution to the field
    • Methodological rigor and scientific validity
    • Clarity, structure, and coherence
    • Relevance and adequacy of references
    • Compliance with ethical standards

    5. Editorial Decision

    Based on reviewers’ reports, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:

    • Accept
    • Minor revision
    • Major revision
    • Reject

    The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account reviewers’ recommendations and editorial judgment.

    6. Revision and Final Decision

    Where revisions are required, authors are invited to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments.

    Revised submissions may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers or the editorial team before a final decision is reached.

    Double-Blind Review Requirements for Authors

    To preserve anonymity during the review process, authors must:

    • Remove all identifying information from the manuscript file
    • Avoid self-identifying references
    • Submit author details separately (title page, affiliations, ORCID, contact information)

    Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

    Reviewers are expected to:

    • Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations
    • Maintain strict confidentiality of all materials
    • Disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment

    Confidentiality

    All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential and must not be disclosed to third parties.

    Appeals and Complaints

    Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a justified request to the editorial office.

    Appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines, ensuring fairness, transparency, and independent evaluation where necessary.

    ✅ Withdrawal Policy

    SEI recognizes that authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript under certain circumstances and manages such requests in accordance with international ethical standards.

    Withdrawal Before Peer Review

    Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript prior to the start of peer review.

    Requests must be submitted by the corresponding author to the editorial office and should include:

    • Manuscript title
    • Submission identification (if available)
    • A brief justification for the request

    Withdrawal After Peer Review

    Requests for withdrawal after the peer review process has begun are subject to editorial consideration.

    The editorial office may request additional clarification before approving such requests, in order to maintain the integrity of the review process.

    Post-Acceptance Withdrawal

    Withdrawal requests after acceptance are considered only under exceptional circumstances and may require formal justification.

    Editorial Contact

    For all inquiries related to the peer review or withdrawal process, please contact:

    📧 editor@imcra-az.org