Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process – SMART Journal

SMART – Scientific Multidisciplinary Advances in Research & Technology is committed to ensuring the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo the following procedure:

Overview of the Review Workflow

  1. Initial Editorial Screening
  • Each manuscript is first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor.
  • Submissions are checked for relevance to the journal scope, adherence to author guidelines, originality (via plagiarism screening), and basic scientific quality.
  • Manuscripts that fail to meet basic standards may be desk rejected at this stage.
    1. Assignment to Reviewers
  • Eligible manuscripts are sent to 2–3 independent expert reviewersusing a double-blind process (neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities).
  • Reviewers are selected based on subject matter expertise and publication history.
    1. Review Period
  • Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript within 3–4 weeks.
  • They assess the manuscript's:
    • Scientific validity and methodology
    • Originality and contribution to the field
    • Clarity of presentation and structure
    • Ethical compliance and reproducibility
  1. Editorial Decision
  • Based on reviewers’ reports, the Editor will choose one of the following outcomes:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revisions
    • Major Revisions
    • Reject
  • Review reports (anonymized) are shared with the authors.
    1. Revision and Resubmission
  • Authors must submit a revised version along with a point-by-point response letter.
  • Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for confirmation.
    1. Final Decision
  • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.
  • Accepted manuscripts move to the copyediting and production phase.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on the following criteria:

  • Novelty and innovation
  • Scientific rigor and methodology
  • Relevance to the journal scope
  • Quality of writing and presentation
  • Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical and Confidentiality Policy

  • Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest.
  • All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.
  • Reviewers should not use unpublished information for personal gain.

Transparency and Integrity

  • SMART encourages constructive and respectful feedback.
  • In cases of conflicting reviews, the Editor may seek an additional opinion.
  • Appeals and rebuttals are handled by the Editor-in-Chief with input from the Editorial Board.