Peer Review Policy

Scientific Thought is committed to maintaining high academic standards through a rigorous and fair peer review process. Our peer review policy ensures that all submitted manuscripts are evaluated by qualified experts in the respective fields.

• Review Process:
  All submitted articles undergo a Triple-blind peer review process, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This ensures unbiased and impartial evaluations.

• Reviewer Selection:
  Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and impartiality. The journal ensures that reviewers have no conflict of interest related to the manuscript being reviewed.

• Timeliness:
  Scientific Thought strives for efficiency in the peer review process. We aim to provide reviewers with a decision within four to six weeks of manuscript submission. Authors are informed of the review results as soon as a decision is made.

• Types of Review:

  • Original Research: Peer reviewers assess the scientific validity, significance, and originality of the research.

  • Review Articles: Reviewers evaluate the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and relevance of the literature covered.

  • Short Communications and Case Studies: Reviewers focus on the clarity, methodology, and contribution to the field.

• Editorial Decision:
  After the peer review process, the editor-in-chief, along with the editorial board, makes a final decision on the manuscript based on the feedback from the reviewers. The possible outcomes include:

  • Accepted: The manuscript is accepted without changes or with minor revisions.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor changes before acceptance.

  • Major Revision: Substantial changes are required for reconsideration.

  • Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s criteria for publication.

• Confidentiality:
  All manuscripts and their reviews are treated as confidential. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback and maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript contents.

• Ethical Considerations:
  The journal adheres to ethical guidelines for peer review, ensuring that the process is transparent, fair, and free of conflicts of interest. We also discourage plagiarism, manipulation of citations, or any form of unethical behavior in the research process.

• Appeals:
  Authors who wish to appeal a decision made during the peer review process may submit a written appeal to the editor-in-chief, along with a detailed explanation. The editorial board will consider the appeal and, if necessary, seek further expert opinions.