Each manuscript will undergo the blind peer-review process by the scientific committees to maintain high-quality publication. Subsequently, the peer-review process consists of two stages. The first stage is initial screening, where the editorial team checks the minimum criteria of the manuscript. Meanwhile, the second stage is the review process. The peer-review process is shown in the figure below.
At the first stage, the manuscript is screened by editors based on the minimum criteria:
Please be noted: the manuscript that does not meet those minimum criteria will be rejected.
At the second stage, the manuscript is reviewed by at least three reviewers with double-blind peer review. Therefore, both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other. The reviewers assess the quality of the manuscript, including the research methodology, validity, and novelty. The reviewers independently make a feedback/recommendation to the editors on whether the manuscript should be rejected or accepted. The editors will consider the reviewers’ recommendation and decide to accept or reject the manuscript.
Scientific committees of ICOVEAT employ an online system for both submission and review of the article. This system must be used by every proposed article and in accordance with the Peer Review Policy.
Scientific committees of ICOVEAT are committed to ensuring that the peer-review process is efficient and timely. Paper is selected based on the quality of the content, and the topic must clearly be within the focus and scope of ICOVEAT.
Scientific committees of ICOVEAT will select reviewers based on their expertise in the subject matter of the article, and they must consider any potential conflict of interest created by the reviewers in order to determine whether or not bias exists.
The research article must be reviewed by at least three independent reviewers, and if necessary, the editorial board will acquire an additional opinion, such as by adding a fourth reviewer, and so on. Scientific committees of ICOVEAT adhere to the best practice guidelines provided by the Publisher to avoid selecting counterfeit peer reviewers.
The review process will observe the following factors: aim and scope, novelty, objective, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references. The remarks of reviewers will be forwarded to the corresponding author for any required actions or feedback. The editorial board will evaluate the reviewer's comments and decide the final decision on the submission based on the reviewer’s recommendation. Further, the final decision is notified to the corresponding author.
The online submission system is used for all correspondence among the scientific committees of ICOVEAT, author, and reviewers. Scientific committees of ICOVEAT also applies Turnitin to screen plagiarism.
The Scientific committees of ICOVEAT are responsible for maintaining the anonymity of all information submitted to the journal as well as all correspondence and discussion with reviewers. The editorial board will also ensure that reviewers and authors are unknown of each other identity (double-blind review method).
The Scientific committees of ICOVEAT will adhere to the Peer Review Policy on author and reviewer disclosure of conflicts of interest. The Scientific committees of ICOVEAT will provide assistance and guidance to authors and reviewers across the publishing process.
The following questions should be considered before you accept or decline the review invitation:
Either accept or decline to review the article, please respond to the invitation soon. The slow response will delay the review process. Please suggest alternative reviewers if you decline the invitation.
The Scientific committees of ICOVEAT will evaluate your review as a reference for acceptance or decline of the article. Thus, your review must be constructive and objective in relation to the article. Despite this, your comments should be polite. The review process adheres to double-blind which means the reviewer should avoid remarks or any personal information.
Reviewers are also encouraged to provide the article’s deficiencies. The review must be written clearly so that both the author and the editor can comprehend your perspectives on remarks. You must also specify your review as a private matter or based on data contained in an article or other sources.
The Scientific committees of ICOVEAT will evaluate and consider all comments and recommendations, if necessary, the third opinion is involved or request the author to revise the article prior to making the final decision. Editor decides the final decision on whether accept or decline the submission.
