the_usa_journals
Submit Your Article

Peer Review Process

  1. Home
  2. Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All journals under the Emerging Innovations Society: Science, Technology, and Social Studies follow a rigorous and structured double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and impactful research. This process is integral to maintaining academic integrity, transparency, and scholarly excellence.

Double-Blind Review Model

In the double-blind review process:

  • The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and

  • The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

This ensures a fair, unbiased, and objective evaluation of the manuscript, free from potential conflicts of interest or personal influence.

Step-by-Step Review Workflow

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

    • Upon submission, each manuscript is screened by the editorial office for completeness, scope, formatting, plagiarism (using standard detection software), and ethical compliance.

    • Manuscripts that meet the basic criteria are forwarded to the assigned Section Editor.

  2. Assignment to Reviewers

    • The Section Editor assigns the manuscript to two or more independent expert reviewers in the relevant field.

    • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and availability.

  3. Peer Review Evaluation

    • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

      • Originality and novelty

      • Methodological soundness

      • Relevance and contribution to the field

      • Structure, clarity, and language quality

      • Ethical standards and data integrity

    • Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommend one of the following decisions:

      • Accept

      • Minor Revisions

      • Major Revisions

      • Reject

  4. Author Revision

    • If revisions are requested, the editor sends the reviewers' comments to the corresponding author.

    • Authors are expected to revise and resubmit the manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' suggestions.

  5. Final Decision

    • Upon receiving the revised manuscript, the editor may:

      • Make a final decision directly, or

      • Send the revised version back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation (especially in the case of major revisions).

    • The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor makes the final decision based on reviewer recommendations and overall quality.

  6. Publication

    • Once accepted, the manuscript moves into the production stage.

    • Articles are copyedited, typeset, assigned a DOI, and published in the next monthly issue of the respective journal.

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

  • All reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and must not use any unpublished information for personal gain.

  • Any suspected conflict of interest, ethical concerns, or plagiarism identified during the review must be immediately reported to the editorial office.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written justification to the Editor-in-Chief. Complaints regarding the review process or reviewer conduct will be thoroughly investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.

The Emerging Innovations Society is committed to upholding a transparent, fair, and ethical peer review system that supports scholarly excellence and promotes trust in academic publishing.