Peer Review Process

Species journal employs a double-blind external peer review process, in which the author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. The Editorial Board of the journal will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in that journal. Those articles which fail to reach the scientific standards of the journal may be declined without further review. Those articles which satisfy the requirements of the Editorial Board will be sent to a maximum of three referees. These are experts in the field who have agreed to provide a rapid assessment of the article. Every effort will be made to provide an editorial decision as to acceptance for publication within 6-12 weeks of submission. Referees may request a revision of the article to be made. In this case, it is generally understood that only one revised version can be considered for a further appraisal under the peer-review system.

Editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Fair play

An editor will at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Peer Review Model

Species operate under a double-blind external peer review process. This means that reviewers doesn't know the identity of the authors, similarly the authors also doesn't know the identity of the reviewers.

Conflicts of interest

Discovery Scientific Society encourage transparency, & who are all participated in the peer-review progress should judiciously obey and disclose the conflict of interest while contributing to peer-review, manuscript finalization and publication of work. Before commencing to peer-review, any association which restrict & interfere the data assessment, peer-review progress & manuscript decision-making should be declared. The editor or reviewer or both trusts that the presence of any conflicts, which should not influence the review-progress or manuscript finalization process; if so, The editor or reviewer should get rid of themselves in the review-pipeline to evade the sensitivity of conflicts of interest in addition to shield the integrity regarding to peer-review progress.

Conflicts of Interest (Types)

The editor or reviewer or neither one should not participate in the pipeline of peer-review of a work submitted via researchers those are associated with the own organization/University, by authors those are the collaborators of the work, or by some authors those are all personally well known, spouse or any members of the family. The editor or reviewer or both should not participate in the pipeline of peer-review of a work submitted via authors those are all represent in the current time, or represented as a tutor or research mentor or had past relationship or co-author of any publication in the past 3 years.

Professional or Financial Conflicts

Financial conflicts contain some specialized or commercial associations, financial or profitable benefits, or other conflicts are observed as possibly influence to peer-review process. Neither Editors nor Reviewers would get specialized or commercial associations, wages, panel membership, fiscal, scholarship & allowance from a firm or firms’ welfare through the research outcomes or some-other features of the script-data, stipends, or grasp other benefits in an organization whose merchandise detailed in the manuscript, or privileges of intellectual properties i.e., royalty, copyright, and patent, subsequently their influence or support. Where may be observed as possibly familiarizing unfairness to peer-review progress, the editor & reviewers should not contribute in the peer-review & decision-making progress of the study.

Other Conflicts

Further conflicts regarding actual or possibly noticed influencing the decision-making and outcomes of peer-review progress must be self-confessed. According to the Discovery Scientific Society’s editorial policies, manuscript originality, excellence and suitability of the journal should be evaluated by editors & reviewers. Discovery Scientific Society aims to construct a journal’s structure as comprehensive and diverse; and has no room for discernment centered on gender, character, sex, race, sexual orientation, country of origin, color, religion, socio-economic grade, age and physical ability. Personal biases should be disclosed by editors & reviewers which may influence or disturb the peer-review progress. If the editor or reviewer or both, with the existence of conflicts of interest in reviewing the study, a different editor or reviewer or both should be assigned. If a manuscript is submitted to the journal by the author who himself is an editor, its work should be editorially managed via another editor who doesn’t hold any conflicts of interest.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

The content of the article including abstract should keep confidential by editors & reviewers. Discovery Scientific Society Journals execute double-blind external peer-review. The identity of reviewers should not be making known to authors in their review explanations or in the technical comments of a research report given in PDF or MS Word format. Discovery Scientific Society Journals will not suggest researchers to include reviewers-comments in their-paper.

© Discovery Scientific Society