Editorial Screening
New submissions are checked for scope, completeness, file quality, declarations, and basic compliance before they enter external review.
Editorial Workflow
Peer Review Process
Understand how submissions are screened, assigned for review, evaluated, and brought to a final editorial decision within the journal workflow.
Initial screening and editor check
Independent peer review
Decision and revision cycle
How Review Works
The peer review process combines editorial screening, expert evaluation, author revision, and final editorial judgment. Authors can use the overview below to understand what happens after submission and what is expected at each stage.
Reviewer Assignment
Suitable reviewers are invited based on expertise, availability, and conflict-of-interest considerations relevant to the manuscript.
Evaluation and Revision
Reviewer feedback informs the editorial recommendation, and authors may be asked to revise, clarify, or strengthen the submission.
Final Decision
The handling editor or editor-in-chief issues the final decision after considering reviewer reports, author responses, and editorial standards.
Review Policy
Detailed Review Procedure
Use the guidance below for the full policy, including reviewer expectations, decision criteria, and author responsibilities during revision.
The peer review process of Research and Science Today is conducted through a dedicated digital editorial platform that ensures transparency, traceability, and efficiency at every stage of manuscript handling. All submissions are processed exclusively within this system, where authors upload their manuscripts and all subsequent editorial and review interactions are recorded.
After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening performed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editorial board member. This stage evaluates the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s formatting and ethical requirements, as well as its relevance to the journal’s scope. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.
Submissions that pass the preliminary screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation. Reviewers receive automated notifications through the editorial platform and are required to submit their evaluation reports directly within the system.
The review process focuses on several core dimensions, including the originality of the research, methodological rigor, clarity and validity of results, relevance of the discussion, and the overall scientific contribution of the manuscript. Reviewers provide structured reports, including detailed comments for authors and confidential recommendations for the editor (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
In cases where the reviewers’ recommendations diverge significantly, the manuscript may be assigned to a third independent reviewer to ensure a balanced and objective evaluation.
Following the review process, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on all reviewer reports. Authors receive consolidated feedback through the platform and are invited to revise and resubmit their manuscripts where applicable. Revised submissions are re-evaluated by the original reviewers whenever possible, ensuring continuity and consistency in the assessment process.
All stages of the peer review process, including submission dates, review timelines, and editorial decisions, are systematically recorded within the platform. These timestamps are subsequently reflected in the published articles (received, revised, accepted, and published dates), ensuring full transparency of the editorial workflow.
The journal is committed to maintaining a rigorous and ethical review process. The average timeframe for initial editorial screening is approximately 7–10 days, while the full peer review process typically takes between 2 and 4 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.