SMAR’s editorial evaluation and peer review process aims to ensure that manuscripts are assessed independently, impartially, and on the basis of scientific criteria with regard to their scientific quality, originality, methodological adequacy, compliance with research ethics, and contribution to the field. The evaluation process consists of technical and editorial preliminary assessment, peer review, revision where necessary, and the final editorial decision.
1. Technical and Editorial Preliminary Assessment
All manuscripts submitted to SMAR undergo technical and editorial preliminary assessment before the peer review process begins. During the technical check, the completeness of the submission files, anonymisation, formatting requirements, required ethics-related documents, and other submission materials requested by the journal are examined. Incomplete or non-compliant submissions may be returned to the authors for the necessary corrections.
A manuscript that successfully passes the technical check is assigned to the relevant field editor according to its subject matter, theoretical framework, and methodology. As SMAR’s interdisciplinary scope is managed through a field-editor model, the scientific preliminary assessment is conducted by a field editor with the appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
The field editor evaluates the manuscript in terms of its alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, research problem, relationship with the relevant literature, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodological adequacy, originality, and scientific contribution. As a result of this assessment, the manuscript may be sent for peer review, returned to the authors for revision prior to peer review, or rejected by editorial decision if it is not considered suitable for peer review.
2. Peer Review, Revision, and Final Decision
Manuscripts that successfully complete the editorial preliminary assessment are evaluated under a double-blind peer review system by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Under this system, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
In selecting reviewers, consideration is given to the subject matter of the manuscript, scientific expertise, reviewing competence, impartiality, independence, and potential conflicts of interest. Care is taken to appoint reviewers from different institutions and to maintain institutional diversity throughout the evaluation process.
Reviewers assess manuscripts in terms of originality, the research problem, relationship with the relevant literature, theoretical or conceptual framework, methodological appropriateness, presentation and evaluation of findings, the scientific basis of the discussion and conclusions, contribution to the field, and compliance with research ethics. Reviewer reports are expected to be clear, reasoned, and sufficiently detailed to enable an appropriate assessment of the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Following their evaluations, reviewers may recommend an editorial decision of acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection:
Acceptance: Indicates that the manuscript is considered scientifically suitable for publication.
Minor Revision: Indicates that limited revisions that do not alter the fundamental structure of the manuscript are required.
Major Revision: Indicates that substantial revisions are required for the scientific evaluation of the manuscript to continue.
Rejection: Indicates that the manuscript is not considered suitable for publication.
A decision of minor or major revision does not guarantee that the manuscript will subsequently be accepted.
Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may make the final editorial decision by considering the scientific reasoning provided in the existing evaluations or may submit the manuscript to an additional reviewer.
Manuscripts for which revision is requested may be resubmitted for peer review depending on the nature of the changes made. Following completion of the peer review and revision processes, the reviewer reports, any revisions submitted by the authors, and the overall scientific quality of the manuscript are considered together in reaching the final editorial decision. Reviewer opinions provide the scientific basis for the editorial decision; however, authority for the final decision rests with the relevant editor.
3. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Editors are responsible for conducting the evaluation process of manuscripts assigned to them in accordance with the principles of scientific quality, editorial independence, impartiality, confidentiality, research integrity, and publication ethics.
Editors must ensure that reviewers with the necessary scientific expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript are appointed and must consider independence, impartiality, institutional diversity, and potential conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers.
Editors evaluate reviewer reports not only in terms of the recommended decision but also with regard to their scientific reasoning, scope, and adequacy. An evaluation that is scientifically inadequate, insufficiently reasoned, or raises serious concerns regarding impartiality is not accepted as the sole basis for an editorial decision; where necessary, an additional reviewer opinion is obtained.
Editorial decisions are made independently of the authors’ identities, institutional affiliations, academic titles, or other characteristics unrelated to scientific evaluation, and are based on the scientific quality of the manuscript and the scientific reasoning arising from the evaluation process.
Editors are responsible for ensuring that the evaluation process is conducted fairly, consistently, and within a reasonable period of time. Where a potential issue relating to research or publication ethics is identified, the matter is handled in accordance with SMAR’s relevant ethics and publication policies.
Editors must withdraw from the editorial process where they have a personal, academic, institutional, or financial conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality, and the manuscript must be assigned to another editor who has no such conflict of interest.
4. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts submitted to them in an independent, impartial, constructive, and reasoned manner in accordance with scientific criteria.
Reviewers must inform the editorial office and, where appropriate, withdraw from the review assignment if they believe that they do not have sufficient expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript, cannot complete the evaluation within a reasonable period of time, or have a personal, academic, institutional, or financial conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality.
Reviewer reports must be clear, based on scientific reasoning, and prepared in a manner that contributes to the improvement of the manuscript. Personal, derogatory, offensive, or scientifically irrelevant comments directed at authors must not be included.
Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all related documents provided for evaluation as confidential. They must not use unpublished information, data, methods, or ideas contained in these materials for personal, academic, or commercial purposes or disclose them to unauthorised third parties. Reviewers must not communicate directly with authors without the knowledge and permission of the editorial office.
Reviewers may request citations from authors only where such citations are scientifically necessary and justifiable for the manuscript under evaluation. Requests for citations to the reviewer’s own publications, particular authors, or particular publications without scientific justification are not acceptable.
If reviewers identify a potential breach of research or publication ethics, duplicate or overlapping publication, inappropriate use of sources, or another issue that may affect scientific integrity during the evaluation process, they must inform the editorial office.
5. Confidentiality and Evaluation Records
Manuscripts under peer review, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and other documents relating to the evaluation process are treated as confidential. Access to such information is limited to persons for whom access is necessary for the proper conduct of the editorial process.
Peer review reports and records relating to the editorial evaluation process are retained for at least five years after the date of publication.