Peer Review Process

Annual Research Seminar (ARS) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, transparency, and academic standards of scholarly publications through a systematic and independent peer review process.

ARS applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team before being forwarded for peer review.

The initial screening evaluates:

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

  • Completeness of manuscript submission requirements.

  • Originality and potential contribution to scholarly knowledge.

  • Compliance with manuscript preparation guidelines.

  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

  • General suitability of the research methodology and scholarly presentation.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned for correction or declined before external peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

ARS adopts a double-blind peer review model.

Under this model:

  • Reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities.

  • Authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

  • Editors are responsible for maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process.

  • Manuscript files provided for review must not contain information that could reveal the authors' identities.

Authors should remove identifying information from manuscripts prepared for review, while reviewers must maintain confidentiality and avoid attempts to identify the authors.

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic expertise and relevance to the manuscript's subject.

  • Research experience and scholarly competence.

  • Independence and absence of significant conflicts of interest.

  • Ability to provide objective and constructive evaluations.

  • Availability to complete the review within the designated timeframe.

The editorial team is responsible for selecting reviewers and managing review assignments.

4. Review Timeline

ARS establishes the following standard review deadlines:

  • Review Invitation Response: Reviewers are requested to accept or decline an invitation within one week.

  • Review Completion: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within four weeks after accepting the invitation.

Automated reminders may be issued to reviewers before or after the specified deadlines.

Actual review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revisions, or additional editorial assessments.

These deadlines are operational targets and do not constitute a guarantee of publication or a fixed editorial decision date.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using the ARS Manuscript Peer Review Evaluation Form.

The principal evaluation criteria include:

  1. Relevance to Journal Focus and Scope.

  2. Originality and Novelty.

  3. Clarity of Research Objectives.

  4. Quality of Literature Review.

  5. Research Methodology.

  6. Results and Data Analysis.

  7. Discussion and Interpretation.

  8. Scientific Contribution.

  9. Organization and Academic Writing.

  10. Research and Publication Ethics.

For the first nine criteria, reviewers use a five-point evaluation scale:

  • 5 — Excellent

  • 4 — Good

  • 3 — Satisfactory

  • 2 — Fair

  • 1 — Poor

Ethical concerns are evaluated separately and may require additional editorial investigation.

Reviewers also provide constructive comments for authors and may submit confidential comments for the editor.

6. Editorial Decision

Following consideration of the available reviewer reports, the responsible editor evaluates the manuscript's scholarly quality, reviewer recommendations, and compliance with journal policies.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any remaining editorial or production requirements.

  • Revisions Required: The authors are requested to revise the manuscript in response to reviewer and editorial comments.

  • Resubmit for Review: Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.

  • Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the responsible editor and is not determined automatically by numerical review scores.

7. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response to the reviewer and editor comments.

The editorial team evaluates the revised submission to determine whether the concerns have been adequately addressed.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the manuscript may be reassessed by the editor or returned to reviewers for further evaluation.

Acceptance is not guaranteed following a revision request.

8. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All individuals involved in the review process must maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and review communications.

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting review assignments or whenever such conflicts become apparent.

If a conflict could compromise independent evaluation, the editor may assign another reviewer.

Confidential comments submitted specifically for editorial consideration must not be routinely disclosed to authors.

9. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

The ARS peer review process follows the journal's Publication Ethics policy, developed with reference to the ethical guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Suspected plagiarism, research misconduct, data manipulation, inappropriate authorship, or other ethical concerns will be evaluated by the editorial team.

Any allegations will be assessed fairly, with appropriate consideration of available evidence and opportunities for clarification.

10. Editorial Independence and Transparency

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts.

Editors must exercise independent judgment and manage conflicts of interest appropriately.

The peer review process is intended to support fair and constructive scholarly evaluation. Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). (2022). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (Version 4).

https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12

Public Knowledge Project (PKP). Learning OJS: Editorial Workflow — Review. https://docs.pkp.sfu.ca/learning-ojs/en/editorial-workflow