Peer Review
Introduction
Extrica is committed to upholding the highest standards of quality, integrity, and academic excellence through our rigorous peer review process. All research articles published in Extrica journals undergo peer review. The peer review process is designed to ensure that all articles published in Extrica’s journals contribute valuable insights, are based on robust research methodologies, and adhere to the ethical standards of scientific inquiry.
Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.
For any general questions or feedback on the peer-review process not addressed in this policy, please feel free to email us at Show Email Address.
Editorial Process
The editorial process at Extrica is designed to ensure swift, efficient, and thorough evaluation of articles, supporting both authors and the scientific community. Below you will find a streamlined version of the process.
Article Submission
Authors submit their articles via Extrica Manager. This submission includes the article, any supplementary materials, and a cover letter detailing the significance of the work.
Upon submission, each article is assigned a unique code. Authors are encouraged to use this code for all subsequent communications related to their article.
Preliminary Evaluation
Preliminary Evaluation refers to the initial review process an article undergoes after an author submits it via the Extrica Manager. This evaluation occurs before the article is forwarded for formal peer review and aims to ascertain if the submission satisfies the basic criteria and standards of the publication. The Preliminary Evaluation process in Extrica’s journals is comprised of two stages:
1) Initial Originality Check
Extrica employs iThenticate 2.0 Plagiarism Detection Software to check whether the submitted article is original and devoid of plagiarism. This crucial step ensures the integrity and uniqueness of the scholarly record by systematically comparing the article against a vast database of existing publications, including academic papers, journals, and internet sources, to detect any overlaps or similarities indicative of plagiarism.
In addition, Extrica's internal system checks if the article has been previously submitted to Extrica, thus preventing duplicate submissions.
2) Article Screening
After passing the initial originality check, the article is sent to the journal's Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief has the option to either assign a designated editor for Article Screening or undertake the task themselves.
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor then evaluates:
- The overall suitability of the article. For example, whether the article falls within the Journal’s scope, the article's scientific merit and potential impact.
- The article’s adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards.
- Any potential conflicts of interest.
Based on this initial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor may decide to:
- Initiate the formal peer review process. If a designated editor is involved, they need to suggest peer reviewers to the Editor-in-Chief following the ‘Criteria for Selecting Peer Reviewers’ section below.
- Reject the article if it is deemed to lack sufficient general interest or is found to be inappropriate for the journal for other reasons, thus precluding it from undergoing external review.
Appointment of Peer Reviewers
If the article advances beyond the Preliminary Evaluation stage, the Editor-in-Chief selects external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief invites selected peer reviewers to review the article. The article must be reviewed by at least two external peer reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief may appoint additional reviewers if needed (such as in cases where diverse expertise is required to thoroughly cover all aspects of the article, particularly for interdisciplinary or complex studies).
Criteria for Selecting Peer Reviewers
The designated editor should only suggest and the Editor-in-Chief should only appoint those peer-reviewers, who:
- Hold at least a PhD.
- Have a track record of publications in the area of the article.
- Have no conflicts of interest with the authors, the research, or the manuscript's outcomes, ensuring a fair and unbiased review process.
- Possess effective communication skills, allowing them to provide constructive and clear feedback that can guide authors to improve their work.
Review Process
The reviewers evaluate the article based on its methodology, results, interpretation, and relevance to the field. Extrica follows a single-blind peer-review model i.e., where the identities of the reviewers are kept hidden from the authors, but the reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities.
Reviewers consider the work's originality, the validity of the research methodology, the significance of the results, and the clarity of presentation. Each reviewer prepares a detailed report with their evaluation, highlighting strengths, pointing out weaknesses, and suggesting improvements, and submits it to the editor.
In their reports, reviewers recommend to the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor the following courses of action:
- Acceptance: the reviewer may suggest the article to be accepted for publication.
- Minor/Major Revisions Needed: the reviewer may recommend that authors would be invited to revise their article to address specific concerns or deficiencies noted during the review. The revised article may undergo another round of peer review (maximum of up to three rounds).
- Rejection: if the article is deemed unsuitable for publication in the journal due to significant flaws or insufficient contribution to the field, reviewers may recommend its rejection.
Reports that provide a comprehensive overview, thereby furnishing editors with crucial information for informed decision-making, are highly valued. Consequently, instead of merely suggesting the article's publication or rejection, providing a detailed analysis of the reasons supporting either outcome is more beneficial.
Editor’s Decision
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the feedback provided by external reviewers, which includes reviewing their recommendations, comments, and any conflicting viewpoints. Based on the feedback from the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor decides whether to accept or the reject the article, or to request that the authors undertake minor or major revisions.
The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article rests with the editor. In very rare instances, such as when a reviewer's report fails to meet quality standards, the editor may choose not to adhere to the reviewers' recommendations. Instead, the editor evaluates the merits of the arguments presented by both the reviewers and the authors, considering additional insights that may not be accessible to either party. The Exftrica and it’s journals primary responsibility lies with the readers and the broader scientific community.
The editor communicates the decision to the authors, providing them with the reviewers' comments and guidance for any required revisions or explaining the reasons for rejection.
Revision
In cases where minor or major revisions are recommended, Extrica will contact the corresponding author and inform him/her about the possibility of making the requested changes and the timeframe for submitting his/her article for revision.
- Authors need to carefully review the feedback from peer reviewers and editors to understand the concerns and suggestions for improvement and revise their article accordingly.
- Along with the revised article, the authors submit an amendments list. This amendments list should address each point raised by the reviewers and editors, explaining how the concerns have been addressed or providing a rationale if a specific suggestion was not followed.
- The author submits the revised article along with the amendments to the Extrica Manager for a second round
of peer review, typically involving the same peer reviewers. An article may undergo a maximum of three
rounds of revision. After evaluating the revised article and reviewing the feedback from the peer reviewers,
the editor determines the article's readiness for publication:
- After the second round of reviews, the editor may decide to accept the article, request a third round of minor/major revisions, or reject it.
- Upon the third round of reviews, the editor's decisions are limited to either accepting or rejecting the article.
The final decision and its reasoning are communicated to the authors.
Timeframe
Extrica journals prioritize swift editorial decisions and publication, recognizing that a streamlined editorial process benefits both the authors and the broader scientific community. As such, Extrica requests that editors and reviewers provide their feedback within the agreed timeframe. Should editors or reviewers foresee a delay beyond the initially expected period, we encourage them to inform
Peer-Reviewers’ Selection
Selecting peer reviewers is a critical step in the editorial process of academic publishing, ensuring that articles are evaluated fairly and thoroughly.
Editors should select experts capable of offering insightful and impartial feedback on the article’s quality, originality, and relevance to the field. These reviewers should be prompt, meticulous, and able to articulate the reasoning behind their opinions.
Reviewers should have a deep understanding and expertise in the article’s subject area, allowing them to evaluate the work's significance, originality, and methodology accurately.
Editors also base the selection of reviewers on their own previous experience. Editors assess the quality of reviewers' evaluation of the article on a scale from 1 to 5. Reviewers who receive a 1-star rating will not be invited to review additional articles.
Before dispatching articles for review, we ensure to consult with potential reviewers. Reviewers need to remember that these communications may include confidential information, which must be handled with the appropriate level of discretion.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted article must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
AI use by peer reviewers
Peer reviewers are crucial in ensuring the integrity, validity, and quality of scientific publications. They are chosen for their deep understanding of the subject or methodology, making their insights indispensable. Reviewers must ensure the accuracy of their evaluations, based on a trustful relationship with authors and editors.
Nonetheless, despite technological advancements, generative AI tools present certain challenges, including the possibility of inaccuracies, inherent biases, and the potential breach of confidentiality regarding sensitive content. Consequently, as Extrica explores the option of providing peer reviewers with access to advanced, secure AI technologies, we caution against employing these tools for article evaluation purposes at this time. We also urge reviewers to transparently declare any use of AI tools in their analysis when compiling their peer review reports.
This stance reflects our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of review integrity while acknowledging the evolving landscape of digital tools in research evaluation. Our goal is to ensure that the peer review process remains both rigorous and ethical, balancing the benefits of technological innovation with the paramount importance of human expertise and judgement.
Appeals
Authors who disagree with a rejection or any other editorial decision made by Extrica have the right to appeal. To initiate this process, authors should send an appeal via email at Show Email Address within 30 calendar days following the notice of the editor’s decision to reject the article. Upon receipt of an appeal, Extrica commits to conducting a thorough investigation into the concerns raised by the author.
An appeal is considered to be an extension of the peer review process and so you should not submit your article to another publication whilst an appeal is ongoing.
Appeals will only be considered if they directly respond to the reasons provided for the initial rejection. Should the decision letter include reviewer reports, the appeal must address these critiques. However, authors should not submit a revised version of their article with the appeal.
Eligible appeals will be evaluated by the journal's Editor-in-Chief. If the Editor-in-Chief was part of the initial decision-making process, then a member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the original decision will manage the appeal.
If an appeal is successful, it may result in the reversal of the initial decision and another round of a peer-review process. However, if the appeal is rejected, the original rejection will remain in effect, and the article will no longer be eligible for reconsideration.
One appeal per article is allowed. The Editor-in-Chief may consult the editorial team. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.
