Peer Review Process

Double-Blind Peer-Review Process

(as implemented in OJS PKP for all ERDAST journals)

1 Submission

  1. Author uploads the manuscript through the OJS submission wizard.

  2. During upload the author removes identifying information from the main file (names, affiliations, acknowledgements) and uploads a separate Title-Page file that contains this metadata; OJS keeps it hidden from reviewers.

2 Initial Editorial Check

  1. Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or Assigned Section Editor verifies that the paper fits the journal scope, passes the plagiarism check (< 15 % similarity), and is correctly anonymised.

  2. If corrections are needed, the manuscript is returned to the author for “Author Revision – Metadata/Formatting” before peer review begins.

3 Reviewer Selection & Invitation

  1. The Section Editor selects 2–3 independent reviewers in OJS, matching disciplinary expertise and declaring no conflicts of interest.

  2. Reviewers receive a blind invitation email generated by OJS containing:

    • anonymised manuscript PDF (auto-watermarked “For Review”)

    • review deadline (default: 14 days, extendable)

    • reviewer guidelines & COPE ethics link.

  3. Reviewers accept or decline with a single click inside OJS; automatic reminders are sent 3 days before the deadline and on the due date.

4 Anonymous Review Phase

  1. Reviewers access the manuscript in the “Review” panel; author identity and institution are hidden.

  2. Review forms include structured scoring (originality, methodology, significance, clarity) and narrative comments for:

    • “Editor-Only” section (confidential)

    • “Author & Editor” section (shared after decision)

  3. Reviewers can upload annotated files; OJS forces removal of identity in file properties and inserts a generic reviewer code in the filename.

5 Editorial Decision

  1. Once all reports are in, OJS collates reviewer scores.

  2. Section Editor issues one of four decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject.

  3. Consolidated decision letter (with anonymised comments) is sent to the author through OJS. Reviewer identities remain concealed.

6 Revision Cycle (if required)

  1. Author uploads a clean revised manuscript + response-to-reviewers document.

  2. Depending on the decision level, the editor may:

    • Minor: verify changes personally.

    • Major: return the revision to the original reviewers for a second blind round (shorter deadline, typically 7 days).

  3. All communications continue inside OJS, preserving anonymity.

7 Final Acceptance & Production

  1. Upon acceptance, the Title-Page file is merged back with the main manuscript.

  2. Copy-editing, layout, and proof phases occur; the author’s name appears only at this stage.

  3. The article is published open access under CC BY 4.0 and assigned a DOI; reviewer data remain confidential in the editorial log.

8 Post-Publication Integrity

  • Appeals: Authors may appeal decisions within 30 days; a new independent editor oversees the appeal.

  • Corrections / Retractions: Follow COPE flow-charts and are managed openly via OJS’s “Corrections” module.

Key Features That Keep the Process Double-Blind
OJS Mechanism How It Works
Separate metadata & submission files Title-Page is hidden from reviewers; main file stripped of properties.
Role-based permissions Reviewers never see author names; authors never see reviewer identities.
Anonymous file renaming OJS auto-renames reviewer uploads to remove any embedded identity.
Blind discussion channels Editor–reviewer discussions are private; author responses are routed anonymously.

Turnaround Targets

  • Screening: ≤ 3 days

  • Review: 4 – 5 days (rapid) to 4 – 5 weeks (standard)

  • Total submission-to-first decision: ≤ 30 days (median goal)

This workflow, fully supported by OJS PKP, satisfies COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and guarantees an impartial, transparent, and efficient double-blinded evaluation for every ERDAST journal submission.