Editorial Process

At JourniVision, we aim to maintain strong research integrity, transparency, and academic excellence. Each manuscript goes through several steps: technical screening, peer review, editorial decision, production (copyediting, Proofreading, composing) and publication. Experienced editors, subject specialists, and reviewers work together to make sure published research is accurate, ethical, and valuable.

Our process follows international guidelines, including COPE, ICMJE, WAME, and relevant reporting frameworks.

I. Initial Check

After submission, each manuscript goes through an initial check to confirm it meets ethical standards, is technically complete, and fits the journal. This helps avoid delays and makes sure only ready manuscripts move to peer review.

1. Technical and Policy Evaluation

The editorial office first checks if the manuscript follows JourniVision’s author guidelines, such as:

Required declarations (ethical approval, consent, conflicts of interest)
Funding statements, acknowledgments, and author contribution details
Accurate author information, affiliations, and ORCID iDs
Formatting of text, figures, tables, references, and file types
Adherence to reporting guidelines (CONSORT, PRISMA, CARE, STROBE, etc.)

If essential parts are missing, unclear, or inconsistent, authors will need to revise their submission before it can move forward.

2. Similarity and Content Screening

All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using iThenticate. Editors review the report to look for:

Unattributed text overlap
Redundant or duplicate publication
Improper reuse of previously published figures, tables, or data
Potential ethical concerns

If there is significant or unexplained overlap, the manuscript may be sent back to the authors or rejected, following COPE recommendations.

3. Author and Affiliation Verification

To keep the process transparent and prevent authorship issues, JourniVision checks:

Authorship details and contribution statements
Institutional email authenticity (auto-notifications are sent to all co-authors)
ORCID ID validity and publication history
Consistency of author order and affiliations

Any irregularities, such as unverifiable emails, mismatched affiliations, or suspected identity misrepresentation, trigger further investigation before the manuscript proceeds.

4. Scope and Fit Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) checks if the manuscript matches the journal’s goals, subject area, and audience. Based on this, there are four possible outcomes:

Proceed to peer review
Request technical corrections before review
Recommend transfer to another journal within the JourniVision portfolio
Desk rejection

If a manuscript does not fit the journal’s scope, it is declined quickly to avoid unnecessary delays for authors.

5. Confidentiality and Data Assurance

All manuscripts are kept confidential. Editors, staff, and reviewers must not:

Share draft content outside the review process
Use unpublished ideas, data, or methods for personal research
Disclose reviewer identities (Double Blind review process unless specified otherwise)

When necessary, authors may be asked to provide raw data, ethics approvals, imaging metadata, or methodological details for verification.

II. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening enter a rigorous peer review process. JourniVision primarily uses a double-blind system to ensure fairness and minimize bias.

1. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Reviewers are selected based on:

Subject-matter expertise
Experience in the relevant research area
Proven scholarly publication record
Absence of personal, academic, or financial conflicts of interest
Availability and responsiveness

At least two independent reviewers are required; occasionally, a third expert is invited for complex or multidisciplinary manuscripts.

If a reviewer reports a conflict or the editors find one, that reviewer is replaced right away.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

Reviewers are expected to uphold strict professional and ethical standards:

Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based critiques
Maintain strict confidentiality
Declare any conflict of interest
Avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage
Deliver reviews within the agreed timeframe

3. Review Timeline

Although timelines can vary, the general workflow is:

Reviewer assignment: 3–7 days
Peer review period: 2–4 weeks
Additional reviewer rounds (if required): 1–2 weeks

Authors will be notified if delays occur; replacement reviewers may be assigned.

4. Review Evaluation

Reviewers assess:

Novelty and relevance of the research
Methodological soundness and reproducibility
Data accuracy and ethical compliance
Clarity and structure of the manuscript
Quality of figures, tables, and references
Fit with the journal’s scope

The reviewers’ reports and recommendations are sent to the EIC for a final decision.

You can find a detailed workflow diagram on the Peer Review Workflow page.

III. Editor-in-Chief Decision and Revision

The EIC reviews all reviewer reports, author responses, and editorial assessments before issuing a decision. Possible outcomes include:

Accept
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject

1. Revision Process

If revisions are required, authors must:

Submit a revised manuscript with changes clearly marked
Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments
Resubmit within 7 days, unless an extension is requested

Revised manuscripts may be:

Accepted directly
Sent back to original reviewers
Assigned to new reviewers if required

A manuscript typically undergoes no more than two rounds of revision. If substantial issues remain unresolved, the manuscript may be rejected.

2. Resubmission Policy

If a manuscript is rejected:

Authors may submit a new, substantially revised version
It must be submitted as a fresh manuscript
A cover letter explaining improvements is recommended
The prior decision does not influence the new review cycle

Rejected manuscripts may not be resubmitted unchanged.

3. Appeal Process

Authors may appeal a rejection if they believe:

Reviewers misunderstood the content
A factual or procedural error occurred
New evidence clarifies disputed points

Appeals must:

Be submitted within three months
Include a detailed rebuttal with evidence
Address reviewers’ comments point by point

Appeals based solely on disagreement with editorial opinion are not considered.

An independent senior editor or the EIC reviews the appeal, and the final decision is not reversible.

4. Pre-Production Validation

Before acceptance and production:

Graphics are checked for resolution and accuracy
Metadata, citations, and ethical statements are verified
Formatting is standardized to journal requirements

No manuscript moves to production unless all technical standards are fully met.

IV. Production

Accepted manuscripts enter a structured production workflow to ensure accuracy, readability, and professional presentation.

1. DOI Assignment

Each accepted manuscript gets a permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for global visibility and citation tracking.

2. Language Editing

Manuscripts are checked for language and clarity. Editors fix minor issues, but major language problems may need professional editing. Discounted editing help is available if requested.

3. Typesetting and Layout Editing

The production team prepares the manuscript for publication, which includes: