Peer Review Process

Editor in Chief will assign the manuscript to the managing editor for further handling. The managing editor will request at least two scientists to review the research article manuscript. All manuscripts are subject to double-blind peer-review, both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process to meet standards of academic excellence. All papers are fully peer-reviewed. We only publish articles that have been reviewed and approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate (at least two reviewers per article). Journal of Sustainable Development and Regulatory Issues (JSDERI) maintains the standards of double blind-peer review while increasing the efficiency of the process.

JSDERI applies a two-stage process. After the technical check, the submission will be first reviewed by the editorial team for publication suitability in the journal. If suitable, it will then be assigned to one of the editors for handling the review and decision process.

If the manuscript matches the scope and satisfies the criteria of JSDERI, your paper will be assigned to an editor. The editor will identify and contact two reviewers who are acknowledged experts in the field. Since peer-review is a voluntary service, it can take some time. The editor will regularly remind reviewers if they do not reply in a timely manner. During this stage, the status will appear as "Under Review".

Once the editor has received the minimum number of expert reviews, the status will change to "Required Reviews Complete".

It is also possible that the editor on duty may decide that your manuscript does not meet the journal criteria or scope and that it should not be considered further. In this case, the editor will immediately notify the author(s) that the manuscript has been rejected and may recommend a more suitable journal.

Editors also have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. The authors will be advised when Editors decide, further review is required. In short, the steps are:

  1. Manuscript submission (by author).
  2. Manuscript check and selection (by managing editor and editors).
  3. Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Prior to further processing steps, plagiarism check is applied for each manuscript.
  4. Manuscript reviewing process (by reviewers).
  5. Notification of manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments).
  6. Paper revision (by author)
  7. Revision Submission based on reviewer suggestion (by author) with the similar flow to point number 1.
  8. If the reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor).
  9. Galley proof and publishing process.

The steps point number 1 to 5 are considered as 1 round of the peer-reviewing process. The editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers before finally arriving at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

  1. Accepted as it is. The journal will publish the paper in its original form;
  2. Accepted by minor revisions, the journal will publish the paper and ask the author to make small corrections (let authors revise with stipulated time);
  3. Accepted by major revisions, the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors (let authors revise with stipulated time);
  4. Resubmit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision-making after the authors make major changes;

Rejected (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.