Peer review process
This journal engages in a double-anonymous peer review process, which strives to match the expertise of a reviewer with the submitted manuscript. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented in the manuscript.
Mission
The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigour in scholarly publications and research.
Vision
Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse scholarly perspectives to the field.
Values
The journal values diverse perspectives from the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors. Reviewers come from a variety of organizations, careers, and backgrounds from around the world.
Ethics
All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers’ “comments to author” which are shared with you on decision.
Peer review models
This image shows that the peer review process is a layered evaluation system involving:
- Initial assessment by the editor,
- Evaluation by expert reviewers,
- Revisions based on feedback,
- And a final decision that can result in publication, revision, or rejection.
Single-anonymous peer review
The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. However, the name of the author is shared with the reviewers.
The fact that reviewers remain anonymous means they can speak honestly and impartially. Meanwhile, knowledge of an author’s identity can help reviewers place an article in the context of the author’s earlier work.
Double-anonymous peer review
The reviewers aren’t told the name of the author, and the author never learns the names of the reviewers.
Outside of the triple-anonymous model (see below), this is the surest way to ensure that the process is completely objective.
The focus remains on the content of the article, and the possibility of reviewer bias is eliminated. Reviewer bias may be favourable or unfavourable, conscious or unconscious.
Triple-anonymous peer review
The identities of the author, reviewers and editors remain hidden from each other. The author is usually identified only by a number and communication takes place through a website or submission system. This eliminates any potential bias.
Open peer review
This can vary in form. It may be as simple as making the author and reviewers known to one another, or the reviews – and the reviewers’ names – may be published alongside the article. The review process may take place pre- or post-publication, and reports may receive their own DOIs, making them discoverable and citable.
This offers complete transparency. Some believe that the knowledge that reports are going to be published encourages reviewers to produce higher-quality reports overall. The post-publication format publicly recognises the important work of the reviewers.
Our approach to article peer review
The majority of our journals have adopted a double-anonymous peer review model, with reviewers invited by the journal editor.
If the editor decides to decline the manuscript, either before or after peer review, they may offer to transfer it to a more relevant Advances in Research journal in the same field. If the author accepts that offer, any reviews that have already taken place are transferred to the new journal, along with the manuscript.