Skip to main content Skip to content
Reviewers

Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Stages

1
Submit Author submits manuscript through the online system following journal guidelines.
2
Assign Reviewers Handling Editor performs initial check and assigns at least two expert peer reviewers in the field.
3
Peer Review Double-blind review: reviewer and author identities are mutually concealed. Reviewers evaluate validity, quality, and ethics.
4
Decision Editor reviews reports and makes an initial decision: Accept, Request Revision, or Reject. Authors are notified.
5
Revision Author revises the manuscript in response to reviewer and editor feedback and resubmits for final review.
6
Publication Accepted manuscript is processed, typeset, and published in the journal with an official Acceptance Certificate issued.

Policy Overview

Our peer review policy has three main features:

  1. This policy is designed to evaluate the validity and quality of articles prior to publication. This supports the maintenance of the integrity of the knowledge domain to which the articles belong and filters out irrelevant and poor-quality manuscripts (Eysenbach & Till, 2001).
  2. Our peer reviewers ensure that data is clearly presented and findings and conclusions are adequately supported by data.
  3. We follow the double-blind review process, which means neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other's identities or affiliations throughout the review process. Authors are instructed to prepare their manuscripts in such a way that their identities are not revealed. This anonymity prevents bias from either side.

Plagiarism, Originality & Publication Ethics

Regarding plagiarism, replication, and duplication, we adhere to the COPE guidelines. In addition, as a Crossref member, Conscientia Beam (CB) uses similarity checking tools recommended by Crossref. To ensure the originality of content, CB uses iThenticate software — a powerful, user-friendly tool — to detect plagiarism.

To ensure publication ethics are applied throughout the peer review process, CB has clear and distinct policies for conflict of interest, human rights, and informed consent (COPE, 2011, 2015). We require authors to clearly state any conflict of interest regarding financial and non-financial matters.

In cases where human subjects are involved, or if any research shows human health intervention, CB requires authors to submit their research for approval to their institutional ethics committee or review board. CB also ensures that authors have obtained informed consent from the participants, who are permitted to opt out of the research process at any stage.

Our research articles, therefore, convey scientific validity and compatibility with state-of-the-art knowledge. The articles are not only comprehensible but also offer a valuable contribution to the knowledge domain.

References

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March). Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf
  2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2015, November). Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-publication-ethics-flowcharts-full-set.pdf
  3. Eysenbach G and Till JE (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. The BMJ, 323: 1103–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103
  4. Crossref Similarity Check: https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/