All journals of STM Publishing Group Pty Ltd adopt double-blinded peer review.
Rigorous Peer Review
Referees of the Journal are asked to evaluate the manuscript of technically sound. Judgments about the significance of any particular paperare made after publication by the readership, who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them
Peer Review Process
Once the manuscript has passed quality control, it is assigned to the strict double-blinded peer review process for a decision, either to accept, revise, or reject the article.
The majority of the Journal submissions are evaluated by 3–5 external reviewers. Average time from the submission to the first editorial decision is 1 month. The review time could be shortened to 7 days for the paper with sophisticated comments from other recognized journals in the file. According to these comments, the academic editors will make a decision as to accept, reject, request a revision or send to another peer review. Authors who receive a decision of Minor Revision or Major Revision have 21 days to resubmitthe revised manuscript.
If you are submitting a revised manuscript, the following items with your revised submission are required:
Response to reviewers form: Address the specific points made by each reviewer.
Revised manuscript (traced copy): Include a traced copy of your manuscript file showing the changes you have made on the original submission.
Revised manuscript (clean copy): Upload a clean copy of your revised manuscript that does not show your changes.
Help Reviewers to get credit for their contribtuion
STM Publishing Group Pty Ltd peer reviewers can get further recognised for their efforts through the issued certificate and/or Publons due credit for the work that they do.
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and may be unaware of their ethical obligations.
Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere. Peer reviewers should:
only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner;
respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal;
not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others;
declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest;
not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations;
be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments;
acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner;
provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise;
recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
