Regent Science Press

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Regent Science Press Publication House

(Applicable to EJCSSA | EJAIML | BETRF)

1. Overview

Regent Science Press follows a double-blind peer review system to ensure the integrity, fairness, and quality of the publication process.
Both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the evaluation to eliminate bias and maintain academic objectivity.

Our editorial team is committed to a transparent, rigorous, and timely review cycle that helps authors improve their manuscripts and guarantees that only high-quality scientific work is published.

2. Steps in the Peer Review Process

Step 1 — Submission Acknowledgment

  • Authors submit their manuscripts through the online submission system or via the official journal email.

  • Upon successful submission, the corresponding author receives an acknowledgment email with a unique manuscript ID.

Step 2 — Initial Editorial Screening

  • The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor performs an initial assessment.

  • The manuscript is checked for scope relevance, format compliance, and plagiarism (using licensed similarity-detection tools).

  • Manuscripts with serious ethical or quality issues are rejected at this stage.

Step 3 — Assignment to an Associate Editor

  • Suitable submissions are assigned to an Associate Editor with expertise in the relevant subject area.

  • The Associate Editor identifies and invites two or more qualified reviewers.

Step 4 — Double-Blind Peer Review

  • The manuscript (with author details removed) is sent to independent reviewers.

  • Reviewers evaluate the paper on:

    • Originality and novelty

    • Technical and methodological soundness

    • Clarity of presentation

    • Significance and contribution to the field

    • Ethical compliance

  • The reviewers submit a structured review report and recommendation:

    • Accept without revision

    • Minor revision

    • Major revision

    • Reject

Step 5 — Author Revision

  • Review reports are forwarded to the authors (anonymized).

  • Authors must revise the manuscript according to reviewer comments and submit a detailed response letterexplaining each change.

  • Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the editor (and sometimes re-sent to reviewers).

Step 6 — Final Decision

  • The Editor-in-Chief, considering reviewers’ feedback and editorial recommendations, makes the final decision:

    • Accept

    • Revise again

    • Reject

  • The decision is communicated promptly to the corresponding author.

Step 7 — Copyediting and Proofreading

  • Accepted manuscripts undergo language polishing, formatting, and reference standardization following the journal’s style.

  • Authors receive galley proofs for final verification before publication.

Step 8 — Online Publication

  • Once approved, the article is assigned a DOI, indexed, and published online under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0).

3. Review Timeframe

  • Initial screening: 5–7 days

  • Peer review: 2–4 weeks (depending on reviewer availability)

  • Revision and final decision: 1–2 weeks

Average publication cycle: 4–6 weeks from submission to online publication

4. Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.

  • They should not use unpublished material for personal advantage.

  • Conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor immediately.