Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is a core quality-control mechanism in scholarly publishing. It helps editors evaluate originality, scholarly contribution, methodological rigor, relevance, reporting quality, and overall suitability for publication. It also provides authors with expert feedback that may improve the clarity, robustness, and presentation of their work.

2. Scope of this Policy

This policy applies to manuscripts submitted to SIARE proceedings and related scholarly publications where peer review forms part of editorial assessment. It establishes the general principles governing peer review. The detailed operational workflow for a specific proceeding, journal, or special issue is published separately on the respective proceeding page under its dedicated Peer Review Process section or page.

3. Peer Review Models

SIARE may use different review models depending on the nature of the proceeding, discipline, editorial setup, and publication design. These may include:

• Double-blind peer review – reviewers do not know author identities and authors do not know reviewer identities
• Single-blind peer review – reviewers know author identities, but reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors
• Other editorially approved models – where clearly stated on the relevant proceeding page

The applicable review model should be stated clearly for each individual title or proceeding.

4. Initial Editorial and Technical Screening

Before external peer review, submissions may undergo an editorial or technical screening to assess readiness for review. This stage may include checks for:

• Scope and article-type suitability
• Completeness of files and metadata
• Basic formatting and submission compliance
• Anonymization where blinded review applies
• Plagiarism, overlap, or policy-compliance concerns
• Presence of required declarations, ethics statements, and supporting information

Manuscripts may be returned for technical correction, declined at the screening stage, or advanced to editorial evaluation and reviewer assignment.

5. Preliminary Editorial Evaluation

Editors may assess whether a manuscript is sufficiently original, coherent, relevant, and methodologically plausible to justify external review. A manuscript may be declined without peer review if it is clearly outside scope, lacks sufficient scholarly merit, contains serious methodological deficiencies, fails basic ethical expectations, or is unlikely to succeed in full review.

6. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, methodological competence, independence, and absence of real or perceived conflicts of interest. SIARE aims to secure an appropriate number of reviewers for a balanced and informed assessment. In many cases, this will involve at least two qualified expert reviewers, although the exact number may vary by proceeding, article type, or editorial circumstances.

• Reviewers should have relevant expertise in the subject area
• Reviewers should be independent of the authors and institutions where possible
• Reviewers should disclose conflicts before accepting a review
• Editors may invite additional reviewers where needed for balance or expertise

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and professionally. Their reports should be evidence-based, respectful, and sufficiently detailed to support editorial decision-making.

• Evaluate the manuscript fairly and on scholarly merit
• Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process
• Declare conflicts of interest before or during review
• Provide constructive comments for authors
• Raise serious ethical or integrity concerns confidentially to the editor
• Submit the review within the agreed timeframe where possible

Reviewer guidance should be read alongside the relevant Reviewer Guidelines, Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities, Review Criteria & Evaluation, and Conflict of Interest policies.

8. What Reviewers Are Asked to Assess

Depending on the publication and article type, reviewers may be asked to assess the manuscript in relation to:

• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Relevance to the field and intended audience
• Clarity of objectives and research questions
• Appropriateness and rigor of methodology
• Quality of analysis, interpretation, and conclusions
• Adequacy of literature engagement and contextualization
• Clarity of writing, tables, figures, and supplementary content
• Ethical integrity, reporting standards, and reproducibility

9. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review, reviewer identities where protected, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and associated files are treated as confidential.

• Unpublished manuscripts must not be shared without authorization
• Reviewers must not use confidential information for personal advantage
• Editorial records are restricted to authorized participants

10. Conflict of Interest Management

Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members must disclose conflicts of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality or interpretation. Where a relevant conflict exists, appropriate management steps may include reassignment of editors or reviewers, expanded oversight, or disclosure in the published record.

11. Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final editorial decisions are made by the editor or designated editorial authority based on reviewer reports, editorial judgment, policy compliance, and the overall quality and suitability of the submission.

Possible editorial outcomes may include:

• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject with invitation to resubmit, where applicable
• Reject

12. Revisions and Further Review

When revision is invited, authors are expected to respond carefully and transparently to reviewer and editor comments. Revised manuscripts may be:

• Assessed directly by the handling editor, especially for minor revisions
• Returned to one or more original reviewers for re-evaluation
• Sent to new reviewers if new issues arise or original reviewers are unavailable

Multiple rounds of revision may occur where editorially justified.

13. Timeliness and Communication

SIARE aims to manage peer review efficiently while preserving quality, fairness, and due diligence. Editors and reviewers are encouraged to act promptly, and authors are informed where delays arise because of reviewer availability, additional checks, or complex editorial assessment.

14. Integrity, Ethics, and Misconduct Concerns

If plagiarism, fabricated data, duplicate publication, image manipulation, authorship problems, undisclosed conflicts, or other integrity concerns are suspected at any stage, SIARE may pause review or editorial processing and investigate under its publication ethics procedures.

15. Proceeding-Specific Peer Review Process

Because operational workflows may differ between proceedings, conferences, special issues, and publication programs, each proceeding publishes its own detailed Peer Review Process individually on its respective proceeding page.

That proceeding-specific page may describe:

• The exact peer-review model used
• The submission-to-decision workflow
• Revision and re-review stages
• Review timelines or expected turnaround
• Editorial roles and decision routing

16. Related Policies

This Peer Review Policy should be read together with the Reviewer Guidelines, Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities, Review Criteria & Evaluation, Conflict of Interest Policy, Plagiarism & AI Policy, Submission Guidelines, Post-Publication Policy, and Corrections & Retractions Policy.