Peer Review Policy

Scholastic open Access follows a double-blinded peer review process to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and independently.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to SCMS undergo an initial screening by the Editor or Editorial Team to determine whether the manuscript is within the journal's scope, meets the basic submission requirements, and is suitable for external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside the journal's scope may be rejected or returned to the authors without external peer review.

2. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, research experience, and ability to provide an impartial assessment. Reviewers must be independent of the authors and should not have a conflict of interest with the manuscript.

The Editor may appoint an additional reviewer when necessary, including when reviewer recommendations differ substantially.

3. Double-blinded Review

SCMS operates a double-blinded peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

Reasonable efforts are made to remove identifying information from manuscripts before they are sent for external review. Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and its contents.

4. Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on relevant academic and scientific criteria, including originality, relevance, methodological soundness, clarity, quality of results and discussion, appropriate references, ethical considerations, and overall contribution to the field.

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final editorial decision is the responsibility of the Editor.

5. Revision and Final Decision

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript together with an appropriate response to the comments.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the Editor, depending on the nature of the revisions.

The Editor makes the final decision based on the reviewers' reports, the quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial and ethical standards.

6. Suggested and Excluded Reviewers

Authors may suggest potential peer reviewers in their cover letter at the time of submission. Suggested reviewers should have relevant expertise and must be independent of the authors. Institutional email addresses, ORCID, Scopus profile, or other information that helps verify the reviewer's identity and expertise may be provided where available.

Authors may also request the exclusion of specific individuals from the peer review process where there is a legitimate conflict of interest. Such requests should be explained in the cover letter. The final decision regarding reviewer selection remains with the Editor.

7. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and review materials as confidential and provide objective and constructive assessments.

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and should decline a review assignment if they cannot provide an impartial assessment.

Scholastic Open Access is committed to maintaining the confidentiality, integrity, independence, and fairness of its peer review process.