Peer Review Process

 Peer Review Process

  1. All articles submitted to the UoS (JOS) for publication are subjected to a double-blind, peer review process.

  2. Articles are initially reviewed by editors. The editor may reject them either because they are irrelevant to the scope and subject matter of the journals or because they are visibly of a low quality so that they cannot be considered at all.

  3. Articles that are deemed eligible for review are sent to at least two reviewers that are experts in the field of the submitted article. The reviewers of a paper shall be unknown to each other. They are required to decide whether the article is publishable immediately, publishable with minor changes, publishable with major changes, or not publishable at all.

  4. The reviewers' reports are to be sent to the editor and their comments are forwarded to the author(s) for feedback.

  5. Letters of apology shall be sent to authors whose papers have not been accepted for publication.

  6. The review process is usually accomplished within two months and accepted articles are typically published within four months.

Guidelines for Reviewers

  1. UOS's journals adopt the double-blinded peer review method. The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.

  2. Reviewers are not supposed to examine submissions that fall out of the scope of the journal.

  3. Any external reviewer who feels unqualified to review the submitted manuscript should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

  4. All reviewers who carry out peer review on behalf of UOS journals should understand and abide by the standards of confidentiality relating to the peer-review process.

  5. Reviewers must treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. They must not disclose or discuss them with others except as authorized by the editor.

  6. Reviewers shall conduct the review process objectively and should not address any personal criticism to the author. They should also express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

  7. Reviewers shall notify the editor of any considerable similarity or overlap between the reviewed manuscript and any other published work of which they have knowledge.

  8. Reviewers must not use any information or data obtained from the reviewed manuscript for their personal advantage.

  9. Reviewers must not accept to review manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative, or other connections with the author(s).

  10. Reviewers' names and affiliations must be maintained in a secure database that is compliant with data protection standards.