Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
Auna Press implements a peer review process as an essential component of maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publications. Every manuscript received undergoes an objective, transparent, and field-appropriate evaluation before a final publication decision is made.
1. Initial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the editorial team to determine their suitability for the publication's scope, structure, completeness, and compliance with the author guidelines. At this stage, the editorial team may also conduct an initial assessment for potential plagiarism and publication ethics concerns.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before entering the peer review process.
2. Editorial Assessment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assessed by the editor based on the relevance of the topic, originality, scientific contribution, methodological quality, clarity of presentation, and compliance with scholarly publishing standards.
Based on this assessment, the editor determines whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration through the peer review process.
3. Peer Review
Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, experience, and the absence of potential conflicts of interest.
In principle, the review process follows a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on, among other things:
- the originality and novelty of the research;
- relevance and scientific contribution;
- clarity of the research problem and objectives;
- appropriateness of the theoretical framework and literature;
- suitability of the research methodology;
- accuracy of data analysis and interpretation;
- quality and depth of the discussion;
- clarity of the conclusions;
- quality of academic presentation and language; and
- compliance with publication ethics.
Reviewers provide recommendations to the editor, which may include accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
4. Editorial Decision
The editorial decision is made by the editor after considering the reviewers' comments and the overall quality of the manuscript. The editor may require the authors to revise the manuscript when improvements are necessary.
The possible editorial decisions are:
- Accept – The manuscript is accepted for publication.
- Minor Revision – The manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be accepted.
- Major Revision – The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
- Reject – The manuscript is not accepted for publication.
The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor and is based on academic considerations and the results of the review process.
5. Revision Process
Authors whose manuscripts receive a revision decision are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Authors are also expected to provide a clear and systematic response to each substantive reviewer comment.
Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the reviewers to determine whether the requested revisions have been adequately addressed.
6. Final Editorial Review
After the revision process has been completed, the editor conducts a final assessment of the manuscript. This assessment may include checking the consistency of the content, article structure, citations and references, academic language, and compliance with publication ethics and editorial requirements.
Manuscripts that satisfy all requirements are formally accepted and proceed to the production and publication stage.
7. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
The peer review process is conducted professionally and confidentially. Reviewers must not use, disclose, distribute, or take advantage of information obtained from a manuscript for personal or other purposes.
Reviewers are also required to inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of their evaluation. When a conflict of interest is identified, the editor may appoint another reviewer.
8. Review Timeline
Auna Press strives to conduct the peer review process efficiently and within a reasonable timeframe while maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly evaluation. The duration of the review process may vary depending on the subject area, reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required.
9. Ethical and Academic Integrity
Auna Press is committed to maintaining academic integrity throughout the editorial and peer review processes. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to perform their respective roles honestly, objectively, professionally, and responsibly in accordance with established principles of scholarly and publication ethics.
Publication decisions are based on the quality, relevance, originality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript, rather than personal, institutional, or other non-academic considerations.
