Peer Review and Editorial Procedure

Peer review is paramount in upholding the high-quality standards of SPJ Publication journals. Every submission undergoes a meticulous peer review process led by experts. It commences with a technical pre-check by the Managing Editor, followed by an editorial pre-check and reviewer recommendations from an academic editor. Based on this, the academic editor may proceed with the review, reject the manuscript, or request revisions. The peer review entails independent assessments by experts, with a minimum of two review reports per manuscript. Authors may be required to revise and resubmit their manuscript for further evaluation before a final decision, made by an academic editor, is rendered. Accepted manuscripts subsequently undergo internal copy-editing and English editing.

Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities

Reviewers hold a pivotal role in upholding the scholarly integrity of SPJ Publication journals. They are required to adhere strictly to COPE guidelines, avoid conflicts of interest, and possess relevant expertise along with a proven publication track record. Reviewers are tasked with delivering timely, transparent, and ethical evaluations, maintaining professionalism, and furnishing quality review reports throughout the peer review process.

Reviewers’ Benefits

SPJ Publication acknowledges the valuable contributions of reviewers by extending several benefits, including discount vouchers for future submissions, professional English editing services, personalized reviewer certificates, eligibility for “Outstanding Reviewer Awards,” and inclusion in the journal’s annual recognition of reviewers. Exceptional reviewers may be invited to join the Reviewer Board and can register their reviewing activity on the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service and ORCID.

Reviewer Board

The Reviewer Board (RB) comprises seasoned researchers who consistently provide high-quality review reports to support journal endeavours. RB members are expected to review a minimum of six manuscripts annually, propose alternative reviewers if unable to review, and are recognized with certificates, announcements on the journal website, and potential promotion to the Topical Advisory Panel.

Volunteer Reviewers

SPJ Publication journals welcome volunteer reviewers meeting the criteria outlined in the “Reviewers’ Profile and Responsibilities” section. Applications are thoroughly vetted to ensure alignment with the journal’s scope and ethical standards. Active volunteer reviewers may be considered for promotion to the Reviewer Board based on their performance and contributions.

General Guidelines for Reviewers

• Invitation to Review: Reviewers evaluate manuscript quality and offer recommendations to external editors. They should promptly accept or decline invitations and request deadline extensions if necessary.

• Potential Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as affiliations with authors or financial interests, to the journal Editorial Office.

• Declaration of Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content and refrain from revealing their identity to authors.

• Review Reports: Review reports should provide a critical analysis of the manuscript, and detailed comments, avoid recommending unnecessary citations, and be written in English. The use of AI tools for report preparation is prohibited.

• Rating the Manuscript: Reviewers assess aspects like novelty, scope, significance, quality, scientific soundness, and overall merit.

• Overall Recommendation: Reviewers provide recommendations such as accept, accept with minor revisions, reconsider after major revisions, or reject, substantiating their decision.

• Guidelines for Reviewers for Registered Reports Papers: Reviewers evaluate study proposals (Stage 1) and the full study (Stage 2), focusing on methodology, hypotheses, and adherence to registered procedures.