REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION
All papers submitted for publication are immediately subjected to preliminary editorial scrutiny by the Editor-in-Chief regarding their suitability. The Editor-in-Chief determines if the manuscript:
(a) falls within the scope of the journal and
(b) meets the editorial criteria of Bentham OPEN Publishers in terms of originality and quality.
Manuscripts that appear to be suitable are then subjected to single-blind peer-review by, usually three, neutral eminent experts. The services of eminent international experts are sought through invitations to conduct the peer-review of a submitted manuscript, keeping in view the scope of the manuscript and the expertise of the reviewers. The identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors. The anonymity of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by the reviewers.
Before sending the manuscripts to reviewers, Bentham OPEN seeks consent from potential reviewers about their availability and willingness to review. Correspondence between the editorial office of the journal and the reviewers is kept confidential. The reviewers are expected to provide their reports in a timely fashion since a prompt review leads to timely publication of a manuscript which is beneficial not only to the authors but to the scientific community as well.
The editorial process and peer-review workflow for each journal are taken care of by a team of Senior Editors, Editorial Board Members (EBMs) and dedicated Journal managers who have the required expertise in their specific fields.
Bentham OPEN Publishers carries out independent review of all articles. The reviewers are selected according to their expertise, from our, regularly updated, referee database.
On the basis of reviewer comments, the Editors may recommend acceptance, revision or rejection of a manuscript.
After review of the manuscript by at least three independent experts, in addition to the views of the Editor, the decision is relayed to the authors, which may be categorized as:
- Requires minor changes
- Requires major changes
- Rejected but may be resubmitted
- Rejected with no resubmission
Bentham OPEN requests not to have the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have competing interest with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for Editors to be aware of all competing interests; it is therefore expected that the reviewers would inform the Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor if they notice any potential competing interest during the course of review of a manuscript. Moreover, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editors or editorial office of the journal if they have a conflict of interest in carrying out the review of a manuscript submitted by any author/contributor of the manuscript.
The authors are usually requested to resubmit the revised paper within 15 days and it will then be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. The publishers normally allow one round of revision and, in exceptional cases, a second round of revision may be allowed. If further revision is needed, then the manuscript is rejected and the author is requested to resubmit the manuscript for fresh processing.
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is that of the Editor-in-Chief, depending on the quality of the revision and his assessment of the quality of the manuscript. In rare cases, manuscripts recommended for publication by the referees may be rejected in the final assessment by the Editor-in-Chief.
Papers which are delayed by the authors in revision for more than 30 days are required to be re-submitted as a new submission. Papers accepted for publication are typeset and proofs are dispatched to authors for any corrections prior to final publication.
Types of Peer Review:
Peer review is the most important activity of the publication process. Bentham OPEN follows single-blind and Open peer review procedures for submissions of all manuscripts to its journals.
In Single-Blind review, the reviewers’ names are not disclosed to the author but the reviewers are aware of the identity of the author(s).
In the Open Review model the referee’s report may be published together with the article if the author(s) and the referees agree. The identity of the referee may or may not be revealed, according to the opinion of the referee.
Authors may opt for “Open Peer-Review”, which highlights the review process undertaken to publish the research. Optional Open Peer-Review entails publication of all reviewers’ assessments as well as the approval of the Editor on the manuscript together with the article. The reviewers may or may not choose to sign their assessment form and identify themselves in the published reports. The names of the reviewers will be disclosed only if they agree to reveal their identities. The final decision of whether we publish the review or not lies with the Editor and the Publisher.