Peer review is the foundation of academic and scientific publishing, ensuring quality, credibility and validity of published articles. At Scifinti, we uphold a rigorous and independent evaluation process for all submitted manuscripts before their publication.
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial technical review by the journals’ managing editor. If they meet the standard format requirements, the manuscript is then forwarded to the Editor-in-chief (EiC) of the journal for a decision on whether to proceed to the peer review stage. If accepted, manuscripts are proceeded to the peer review stage while others are either rejected or sent back to authors for revision.
I. Reviewers’ Criteria
In our commitment to rigorous and ethical manuscript evaluation, Scifiniti sets high standards for reviewers. We expect reviewers to conduct evaluations promptly and transparently, aligning with the guidelines outlined by COPE. Our peer reviewers are required to meet specific criteria to ensure the quality and integrity of the peer review process:
II. Diversified Reviewers
Diversity among the peer reviewers is the cornerstone of our commitment towards quality publication through the rigorous peer review process. The selection of peer reviewers from diverse backgrounds, disciplines and demographics strengthens the integrity and effectiveness of our peer review system. Editors at Scifiniti are therefore focused on choosing reviewers from diversified regions.
III. Peer Review Model
At Scifiniti, we conduct a single-blind peer-review process where reviewers’ identity is kept confidential to the author but reviewers are aware of the identity of the authors of manuscripts which is proposed for review. The “Open Review” option is also open for authors who are willing to choose provided reviewers must have agreed to publicly display their information and review reports on the website.
IV. Reviewers’ Selection
The selection of peer reviewers is a meticulous process where Editors-in-Chief play a major role. Editors-in-Chief usually recommend 3-5 reviewers from the Editorial Board, Reviewers’ Panel, or other scientists working in similar fields. Occasionally, the Editorial Office may also select suitable reviewers from Pubmed, Scopus, or Web of Science, ensuring their field of expertise is aligned with the manuscript’s scope.
The recommended reviewers are contacted for their availability to provide their feedback within our stipulated timelines. The Editorial Office usually obtains two review reports, in some rare cases third review report is also arranged.
In rare cases, when emerging areas pose challenges in securing suitable reviewers, we may adopt alternative approaches including considering a single review report or recommendations from the Editor-in-Chief to facilitate the completion of the review process.
V. Reviewers Recommendations
Authors can suggest potential reviewers during manuscript submission, but these recommendations undergo a rigorous evaluation at Scifiniti. We ensure the suggested reviewers maintain objectivity and lack conflicts of interest. Our assessment considers their expertise, H-index, and publication record, ensuring alignment with Scifiniti's commitment to scholarly excellence. Authors are encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest with suggested reviewers, helping us maintain the integrity of the review process at Scifiniti.
VI. Peer Review Process
Upon submission, a manuscript is initially checked by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team to ensure adherence to the journal’s aims and scope and basic formatting requirements as mentioned in manuscript preparation guidelines for authors. If accepted, it further proceeds to the peer review stage.
Reviewers relevant to the manuscript are invited to get their initial consent regarding their availability and subject expertise to review the full-text manuscript in the stipulated time frame. While inviting, they are provided with the manuscript title and the abstract. The reviewers are obliged to either:.
The agreed reviewers are provided with the full-text version of the manuscript and are expected to provide their reports within the stipulated time frame.
Reviewers are expected to provide their remarks on the following points after conducting the peer review:
- Is the review comprehensive and provides any new information to the readers?
- Is it within the journal's scope?
- Is the abstract appropriate and relevant to the content of the article?
- Manuscript covers all important sections, if not then suggest how it could be improved further.
- Are the figures, tables, images, and schemes of high quality? Are they readily clear and understandable? Are they appropriately cited in the text section of the manuscript?
- Is the English language appropriate and not containing any spelling or grammatical errors?
- Are the cited references recent and relevant to the manuscript? Please indicate if an excessive portion of self-citations is found comparing the total number of references cited in the manuscript.
- For research articles, reviewers should also indicate the appropriateness of the research design, methods, data collection, sample size, and analysis.
- Is the conclusion appropriate and coherent with the results and discussion of the manuscript?
- Manuscript is adhered to the ethical policies, and ethical statements and data availability statements are adequate.
- Informed consent has been properly mentioned in articles where animal and human use is being conducted.
Authors should adhere to specific reporting guidelines for transparency and reliability. During submission, they should specify the guidelines they've followed. Reviewers should check compliance with these guidelines and report any deviations in their review.
- Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) - Recommended for randomized controlled trials (Download checklist)
- TREND - Recommended for non-randomized trials (Download checklist)
- PRISMA - Recommended to follow for systematic review and meta-analyses.
- CARE - Recommended to use for case reports
- STROBE - Recommended for Observational studies
- STREGA - Recommended for studies of genetic association
- STARD and TRIPOD - Recommended for diagnostic accuracy studies
- COREQ - Recommended for qualitative research
- ARRIVE - Recommended to improve reporting of research using animal experiments
- MOOSE - Recommended for meta-analyses of observational studies
- EQUATOR - Assist authors, editors and peer reviewers in finding the most appropriate checklist and reporting guideline.
Rate the Manuscript:
During the peer review process, reviewers are expected to review various aspects of the manuscript, including its adherence to the journal’s scope, clarity, comprehensiveness of all its sections, quality of illustrations, schemes, tables, and language, relevance and appropriateness of cited references, research design, conclusion etc. Reviewers are required to individually rate all these sections and provide comprehensive suggestions separately for both authors and editors. The remarks for editors are kept confidential to the authors.
As the culmination of their assessment, reviewers are required to deliver a clear decision on the manuscript. The options are:
- Accept with minor changes
- Accept with major changes
- Reject and recommend resubmission
- Reject with no resubmission
These decisions play a crucial role in deciding the manuscript's future. Review reports are conveyed to the Editor-in-Chief/handling editor, who extracts essential suggestions for manuscript improvement and communicates them to authors. Manuscripts that require major changes will be re-reviewed by the same reviewers, after submission of a revised version.
In cases of ethical concerns or misconduct, reviewers are advised to immediately stop the peer review process and notify the Editorial office for further guidance.
Transfer of Articles
Rejection of articles may arise either due to scope or quality. If an article is found incongruent due to the scope of the journals, it may also be referred to another journal of similar scope, subject to mutual agreement of both author and Editor-in-Chief of the referred journal.
VII. Reviewer's Benefits
Scifinti acknowledges reviewers’ voluntary efforts in conducting peer review of articles. To acknowledge their efforts, reviewers are awarded with:
- Certificate upon completing the peer review
- APC Discounts after reviewing a minimum of 3 manuscripts
- Reviewer's details, photographs, biographies on the website's Reviewers' panel with their consent
- Outstanding reviewers are promoted to Editorial Board members after one year of exemplary performance
- Discounts on graphics enhancement and language editing services
VIII. Conflict of Interest
We strongly support that peer review transparency and quality arise as reviewers are completely neutral and have no association with any of the authors of the manuscript. Reviewers are recommended to inform the editorial office immediately if they find any conflict of interest and to stop the peer review process. Conflict of interest can manifest in various forms, including but not limited to:
- Reviewers’ link or association with the author or the institute
- Reviewers' previous publications with the any of authors listed in the manuscript
- Reviewers' financial or non-financial conflict with the authors of the proposed manuscript
Cases related to conflicts of interest are addressed by the recommended protocol mentioned below, established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Reviewers are suggested to keep the complete peer review process confidential. If they are willing to involve someone else in the peer review process, they should first propose the name and details of the recommended reviewer to the Editorial Office. The Editorial Office will then first scrutinize the recommended reviewer to determine his/her eligibility to work as a co-reviewer. We expect that reviewers will respect the confidentiality policy and will not reveal the author’s identity and the content of manuscripts before or after the completion of the peer review process. If reviewers want to cite the manuscript in any of their future submissions then they must cite it as a reference to credit authors’ work.
Reviewers are expected to review manuscripts within 2 weeks from the date of invitation. In case they are unable to review due to their prior commitments, they should immediately inform the editorial office for an extension in the deadline (if possible) or selection of new reviewers. The average review time from the date of the first submission is 3-4 weeks.
XI. Peer Review Misconduct
The peer review process is crucial for maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. To combat potential manipulation, Scifinti adheres to COPE guidelines and verifies potential reviewers before assigning manuscripts. For details, refer to this flowchart.
How do we address suspected peer review manipulation?
Suspected Peer review manipulations are dealt with as per COPE suggested protocol:
Reviewer citation manipulation
Reviewer citation manipulation is an unethical practice where reviewers recommend authors to cite their articles that are irrelevant to the topic to their citations. At the time of review report submission, reviewers are recommended to suggest only those references that are relevant to the article. This practice compromises the integrity of the peer review process, which is meant to ensure the quality and impartiality of scientific publications. Editors’ are recommended to follow COPE advice in case they come across any such case of citation manipulation.
XII. Reviewer's Registration
Are you enthusiastic about becoming a Scifiniti reviewer? Please send us request to register yourself as reviewer via email. Our team will review your qualifications, and if you meet our criteria, we'll contact you with a list of available articles for review.