The peer review process at FAR Publisher is designed to ensure the publication of high-quality, original research that contributes meaningfully to the academic community. Below is an outline of the process:

1. Initial Submission and Screening:

• Upon submission, each manuscript is assigned a unique manuscript ID and is initially screened by the editorial team for adherence to the journal’s submission guidelines, scope, and basic quality standards.
• Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage, or the authors may be requested to make preliminary revisions before the manuscript is sent for peer review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers:

• Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent experts in the relevant field, chosen from FAR Publisher’s pool of reviewers.
• Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and availability. To maintain objectivity, the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other (double-blind review).

3. Reviewer Evaluation:

• Reviewers are given a set timeframe, typically 2-4 weeks, to evaluate the manuscript. They assess the manuscript based on several criteria, including:
  • Originality: The novelty and originality of the research.
  • Methodology: The soundness and appropriateness of the research design and methods.
  • Significance: The contribution of the research to the field.
  • Clarity: The clarity and coherence of the writing and presentation.
  • Ethics: Compliance with ethical standards, particularly if the research involves human or animal subjects.

4. Reviewer Recommendations:

• After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide a detailed report with their comments and suggestions for improvement. They also make one of the following recommendations:
  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or minor revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor adjustments before it can be accepted.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions and needs to be resubmitted for further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

5. Editorial Decision:

• Based on the reviewers’ reports and recommendations, the editorial team makes a decision regarding the manuscript. The possible outcomes include:
  • Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication with or without minor revisions.
  • Revision Required: Authors are asked to revise the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it. The revised manuscript may undergo further review.
  • Rejection: The manuscript is rejected, either due to major flaws that cannot be addressed through revisions or because it does not fit within the journal’s scope.

6. Revision Process:

• If revisions are required, the editorial team provides the authors with the reviewers’ comments and requests that the manuscript be revised within a specific period.
• Authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments, detailing how each issue has been addressed.

7. Final Review and Acceptance:

• The revised manuscript is reviewed by the editorial team, and if necessary, sent back to the original reviewers for a final evaluation.
• If the revisions satisfactorily address all concerns, the manuscript is accepted for publication. Otherwise, further revisions may be requested, or the manuscript may be rejected.

8. Post-Acceptance:

• Once the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the production stage, where it is copyedited, typeset, and proofread before final publication.
• Authors will receive proofs for final review and approval before the article is published online.

9. Appeals:

• If a manuscript is rejected, authors have the right to appeal the decision. Appeals must be based on a clear rationale, such as potential errors in the review process or a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript.
• Appeals are considered by the editorial team and may involve additional reviewers. However, the final decision on appeals rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

10. Confidentiality and Ethics:

• FAR Publisher maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Reviewers and editors are required to treat all submissions as confidential and must not use or disclose any information obtained during the review process.
• Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed by reviewers and editors to ensure an unbiased review process.

This rigorous peer review process ensures that only high-quality, impactful research is published in FAR Publisher’s journals, maintaining the integrity and scholarly value of our publications.