Peer Review S&P

Peer Reviewer Identification and Selection Process

  1. Reviewer Identification:

    • Reviewers are identified based on their expertise in the subject matter relevant to the manuscript. The editorial team uses:
      • Internal databases of qualified reviewers.
      • Professional networks, including academic journals and conferences.
      • External databases like ORCID, Publons, and ResearchGate to identify individuals with the relevant academic background and publications.
    • Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the editorial team is not obligated to use these recommendations. Authors must also identify any individuals they believe should not review their manuscript due to potential conflicts of interest.

  2. Reviewer's Ethical Compliance:

    • Before assigning a reviewer, editors ensure that potential reviewers declare no conflicts of interest related to the manuscript.
    • Reviewers are required to abide by Pyrrhic Press’s review guidelines, maintaining confidentiality and ethical conduct throughout the review process.

  3. Final Reviewer Selection:

    • The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor makes the final decision on assigning reviewers. This decision is based on the reviewer’s expertise, availability, and track record of providing high-quality, constructive feedback.
    • Typically, 2-3 reviewers are assigned to each manuscript to ensure a thorough and balanced review process.

  4. Invitation and Response:

    • Selected reviewers are invited to review the manuscript. Once they agree, they are provided with the manuscript and the review timeline.
    • Reviewers typically have 3-4 weeks to complete their review, though this may be extended if necessary and agreed upon by both parties.

  5. Reviewer Feedback:

    • Reviewers provide constructive feedback on the manuscript, assessing factors such as originality, methodology, significance, and clarity.
    • Based on this feedback, the manuscript may be accepted, rejected, or returned to the author for revisions (minor or major).

 

 

In Review:

 

  • Review Report Assessment:

    • Once peer reviewers submit their reports, the assigned editor (typically the managing editor or a subject-specific editor) reviews the feedback provided by each reviewer.
    • The editor evaluates the clarity, depth, and relevance of the reviewer’s comments and checks for consistency between the different reports.

  • Decision-making Process:

    • The assigned editor synthesizes the peer reviewer feedback and determines if the manuscript meets the journal’s standards for publication. In cases where reviewers provide conflicting feedback, the editor may either:
      • Seek clarification from the reviewers.
      • Consult with an additional reviewer for further evaluation.
      • Apply their own judgment based on expertise.

  • Final Decision:

    • The final decision is typically made by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor based on the editor's recommendation and the reviewer reports.
    • Possible decisions include:
      • Accept: The manuscript is accepted with no or minor revisions.
      • Revise and Resubmit: The manuscript requires significant revisions, after which it may undergo another round of review.
      • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and is not suitable for publication.

  • Communication with the Author:

    • The decision, along with reviewer feedback, is communicated to the author. The feedback may include specific instructions for revisions if required, or reasons for rejection.