Peer Review Policy

At Scientific Thought Journal (Sci. Thought J.), we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality. Our peer review process ensures that all submitted manuscripts are rigorously evaluated by experts in the field before being accepted for publication. This process guarantees that only high-quality, original research is published, fostering the integrity of academic discourse.

Process:

1. Initial Screening: Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and meets our submission guidelines.

2. Peer Review Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

3. Blind Review: Our journal follows a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This ensures impartial and unbiased evaluations.

4. Reviewer Feedback: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on its originality, methodology, relevance, clarity, and contribution to the field. They provide constructive feedback and recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

5. Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision regarding the manuscript. Authors are then notified of the decision, and if revisions are required, they are given the opportunity to revise and resubmit their manuscript.

6. Revisions: If revisions are requested, authors are encouraged to address all reviewers' comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript. A second round of review may be conducted if necessary.

7. Final Decision: After review and revisions, a final decision is made, and the manuscript is either accepted for publication or rejected. Accepted manuscripts will be prepared for publication in the next available issue.

Confidentiality:

• All participants in the peer review process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, must adhere to strict confidentiality guidelines. Manuscripts under review should not be shared, discussed, or used for personal gain.

Ethical Standards:

• Reviewers are expected to provide honest, unbiased, and constructive feedback based solely on the quality of the manuscript.
• Authors should ensure their work is original, properly cited, and free from any form of plagiarism or academic misconduct.