Peer Review Process

Peer Review Stages

1. Initial Editorial Screening

   After submission through Open Journal Systems (OJS), the manuscript is initially evaluated by the Editorial Team. The assessment includes:

   • relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;
   • compliance with the Author Guidelines;
   • completeness of manuscript and metadata;
   • basic scholarly and methodological quality;
   • publication ethics and research-integrity requirements;
   • required ethical approval or ethical information, where applicable;
   • authorship, funding, and conflict-of-interest declarations where required.

   Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially incomplete, or fail to meet fundamental scholarly or ethical requirements may be declined at this stage without external peer review.

2. Similarity and Integrity Screening

   Manuscripts may undergo similarity screening before being sent for peer review and may be screened again during revision or before final publication.

   Similarity reports are interpreted by the Editorial Team. A similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for determining whether plagiarism has occurred. Editors assess the source, extent, attribution, and context of any identified textual overlap.

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

   Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent peer reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

   Reviewers are selected based on relevant academic or professional expertise, scholarly experience, independence, availability, and the absence of significant conflicts of interest.

   Where appropriate, reviewer expertise may be supported by relevant publications, research experience, academic qualifications, or recognized professional expertise in the manuscript's field.

4. Peer Review Evaluation

   Reviewers are expected to provide substantive, objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments. Review criteria include, where applicable:

   • originality and scholarly contribution;
   • clarity of the research problem, objectives, or questions;
   • adequacy of the state of the art and research gap;
   • appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
   • quality and clarity of data presentation;
   • depth of analysis and interpretation;
   • relationship between findings and previous research or theory;
   • accuracy and relevance of the conclusions;
   • quality, relevance, and accuracy of references;
   • research ethics and integrity;
   • clarity and coherence of scholarly presentation.

   Reviewers normally provide both detailed comments and an editorial recommendation, such as acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

5. Reviewer Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

   Manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer assignments, and information obtained during peer review are confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, professional, or other unauthorized purposes.

   Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline an assignment when they cannot provide an independent and impartial assessment.

6. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

   Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, or confidential manuscript content to generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to analyze, evaluate, or generate the substantive peer-review report.

   Peer-review judgments and recommendations must be based on the reviewer's own scholarly expertise and independent assessment.

7. Author Revision

   When revision is requested, authors are expected to address reviewer and editor comments carefully and provide a clear response explaining the revisions made or the scholarly justification for comments not adopted.

   Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions required.

8. Additional Review

   If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, if a reviewer raises significant methodological or ethical concerns, or if additional expertise is required, the editor may seek clarification or appoint an additional independent reviewer before making a decision.

9. Editorial Decision

   Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal's scope, reviewer reports, author responses, research integrity, publication ethics, and applicable editorial policies.

   Possible editorial decisions include:

   • Accept Submission;
   • Minor Revision;
   • Major Revision;
   • Resubmit for Review, where appropriate; or
   • Decline Submission.

   The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor in accordance with the journal's editorial responsibilities. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not independently determine manuscript acceptance or rejection.

   Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial, financial, institutional, personal, or other inappropriate influences.

Review Timeline

SIBOOK Journal normally aims to complete the initial peer-review process within approximately 4–6 weeks after a manuscript has passed editorial screening.

Actual processing time may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number of review rounds, and the extent of revisions required. The stated review period is therefore an editorial target rather than a guaranteed publication timeline.

Peer Review Documentation

Peer-review assignments, reviewer reports, author revisions, editorial correspondence, and editorial decisions are managed and documented through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) workflow to maintain an appropriate and traceable editorial record.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to comply with the journal's confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, research-integrity, and publication-ethics requirements.

Detailed requirements are available in the Reviewer Guidelines and the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy .