Peer Review Policy

All manuscript submitted to Savvy Science Publisher will be initially assessed by a savvy staff who will scrutinize the general presentation of the manuscript according to the Author’s guidelines. If the manuscript fulfills all basic requirements it will be pass on to the handling editor, a member of the journal’s Editorial Board. At this stage suitability of the manuscripts to the scope of the journal is evaluated ; quick remarks may be given on unsuitable articles before further processing to peer review; and experts of the relevant field are selected and invited for peer review.
The handling editor may accept the submitted Editorials and Letters for publication at this initial phase but, all other types of submission may either be declined due to the unsuitability to the journal’s scope or may be sent for peer review. Submissions that do not fulfil the basic requirements of the journal, or are out of its scope may be rejected at this point to avoid delays to authors willing to submit their articles elsewhere. This decision process may take 1 week after submission. Manuscripts sent forward to the review process are double-blindly reviewed by at least two experts of the field/reviewers. Savvy Science team strives to take all reasonable step for concealing the authors’ identity during review process however, if manuscripts are self-revealing (e.g. authors’ statements about the details of their own prior publications etc.), the review may be prone to be single-blinded (i.e. reviewers are unknown to the authors).

All Savvy journal’s target to obtain the reviewers’ comments within 4 weeks of the initial editorial decision however, authors are requested to wait for at least 6 weeks from submissions before contacting the journal as occasional delays may happen. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for taking the final decision regarding acceptance/rejection of the manuscriptconsidering  reviewers’ comments and whether to send the article back to the author for revisions or not. After receiving the revised copy of the manuscript from the authors, it may be sent to the reviewers for their approval or additional comments. If the reviewer still asks some modifications, the article is sent to the authors for a second round of revision according to the reviewers suggestions. Only 3 rounds of revision are allowed for any manuscript before its final publication.

Savvy Editors may submit their own articles in their journals but, their submission will be dealt and evaluated by external field experts and reviewers at all stages of publication. To comply with our policy of transparency in the publication process we try not to share any details/comments about these submissions with any board member of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for handling such submissions and final acceptance/ rejection of these articles, however a third party expert opinion may also be sought in this regard, if deemed necessary.

In case of submissions for the special issue, the appointed Guest Editor of the issue may be given the task of reviewing the some related submissions accepted after the initial round of review process.However, this is practicedwith special care in order to fully guarantee that there are no conflicts of interests and that reviews are indeed totally unbiased under these circumstances.
The use of electronic submission and peer-review system of Savvy Science facilitates the editors and reviewers during peer review process.

Suggesting reviewers:

Authors may suggest names and institutional e-mail addresses of up to five potential reviewers for the review of their articles keeping in view that all conflicts of interest have been avoided while suggesting them. In addition it is reiterated that that Savvy Science editors are not obliged to follow these recommendations about reviewers.

While suggesting the reviewers authors should not suggest reviewers from their circle of friendships, previous co-authors, or collaborators during the last three years. The journal editorial office will not invite reviewers where they feel a potential conflict of interest with any author.

Authors may also name a limited number of scientists who they want should not review their article (up to 3 named individuals or laboratories may be mentioned); these exclusions will be honored. However, the decision of the handling Editor on the choice of reviewers/referees is final.

Reviewers’ Role:

We consider peer review the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. Therefore, peer review is compulsory for all submissions to the journals and assists the editorial board members in making editorial decisions and resultant editorial communications may also assist authors in improving their articles. In this regard, if a selected referee feels him/herself sufficiently unqualified to review the assigned manuscript; or is unable to provide a timely review; or the article is outside his/her area of expertise; he/she should notify the editor at the earliest excusing him/herself from the review process so that an alternative reviewer may be contacted to (however, the reviewer may nominate an appropriately qualified colleague for review at this stage). All reviews should be conducted objectively with no personal criticism to the author. Reviewers should express their critique clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. A reviewer should call the handling Editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge of. The reviewers may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him/her for review is under consideration in any other journal of their knowledge. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential by the reviewers and not used for personal advantage; this also includes the reviewers who have declined to review the manuscript. Reviewers are bounded not to discuss about any article sent to them for review with anyone and editorial approval must be sought in advance for any third person’s advice, if the reviewer considers it necessary for evaluating the article. 

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have any conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, firms or institutions connected to the papers. Any such conflict should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief by the reviewer. The Editors will then determine sufficiency of the conflict to exclude the reviewer from peer review.

Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process:

Despite taking all measures to ensure a double-bind peer review, the possibility of reviewers knowing the authors cannot be excluded. A reviewer can certainly be relied upon for carrying out an unbiased assessment of an article by the author already known to the reviewer, but following measurements must be given high importance during such situations:

  • If  a significant conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should reveal this to the editor;
  • If the conflict of interest  may cause a significant bias, whether positive or negative, it is advisable to decline the review request;
  • Judge the article only; refraining from any personal comment/critique at any time. This is more likely to guiding authors to better working.

Guidance for Peer Reviewers:

Though no fixed rules for analyzing the articles are outlined and review may be carried out on case-to-case basis, scrutinizing the article for the worthiness, quality, and originality of the work remains the mandatory part of each review. If reviewer believes that the article may be accepted after revisions, clear suggestions should be provided on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if an article is found to be not good enough for research community and has no real prospects of improvement after revision, it may be rejected straightaway. 

In general, the following may be checked in a review 

  • Purpose and Objective of the article 
  • Sufficient details of Materials and Methods 
  • Appropriateness between the Introduction and the discussion sections
  • conclusion/future suggestions provided in the article
  • sufficiency of References provided to validate the content 
  • English grammar, punctuation and spelling(just mention whether English editing is required)
  • Suitability of the article to the need of the field

As a reviewer you should also:

  • Write clearly  so your comments can be understood by people whose first language is not English
  • Avoid using complex or unusual words.
  • Number your points and refer to the section of the manuscript while making specific comments
  • If  you have been asked to comment only on some specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should clearly indicate these in the comments
  • be robust, yet polite, while writing your comments avoiding any personal critique

For further guidance on reviewing process, reviewers are suggested to view:

https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-cope.pdf

AI use by peer reviewers:

Peer reviewers hold a vital position in scientific publishing. Their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, invaluable expertise and recommendations help our editors to take decisions on the submitted articles and ensures the validity and credibility of the published research.  The reviewers are accountable for their views and recommendations expressed in review report.

Although the use of generative AI tools is rapidly progressing in various fields, it still has many limitations and may produce biased and false information. In addition, manuscripts are the authors’ intellectual property (and may include information) that should be dealt as confidential during various stages of publishing. The review process works on the principal of mutual trust between editors, reviewers and authors. Therefore, peer reviewers at Savvy Science are not allowed to upload manuscripts into any generative AI tools. If reviewers have taken assistance from any AI tool during the evaluation of any part of the manuscript, it should be clearly mentioned in their peer review report.

Privacy and Confidentiality: 

All manuscripts submitted to Savvy Science journals are dealt with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. While submitting their manuscripts to the journal authors entrust editors regarding the results of their scientific work and creative efforts which may be crucial for their reputation and career. Reviewers play a vital role in this loop and should be aware that any sort of disclosure of the confidential details during review of the manuscript may violate authors’ rights. Same applies for Reviewers’ rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and the private property of the authors; only where any evident case of dishonesty or deception is suspected, confidentiality may need to be breached, otherwise it is to be honored at all costs. No reviewer or editorial staff member is allowed to publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscripts’ final publication. Reviewers should not make copies of the manuscript for their record keeping or share it with others, except where a special permission has been granted by the editors. It is reviewersethical responsibility to return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their review comments.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

Savvy Science is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading its reviewing and publishing processes as well as dealing with their issues. For further guidance reviewers are advised to see,

https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/considerations-for-peer-review-cope-flowchart.pdf