Peer Review Process of Hansen Scientific Publication Society Journals Using Open Journal Systems (OJS)

The Hansen Scientific Publication Society adheres to a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer-review process for all submissions received through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Our peer review system is designed to ensure the publication of high-quality, original research in our journals. Below is a detailed outline of the peer review process followed by our journals:

1. Submission and Initial Screening

Once a manuscript is submitted to one of our journals through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), it undergoes an initial screening process by the editorial team. This initial evaluation includes:

• Preliminary Checks: The manuscript is checked for adherence to the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines, as well as for plagiarism using plagiarism detection tools.

• Scope Alignment: The editorial team reviews the manuscript to determine if it fits within the scope and focus of the journal.

• Compliance with Ethical Standards: Authors are asked to confirm ethical approval for studies involving human or animal subjects, as applicable.

If the manuscript passes these initial checks, it proceeds to the peer-review stage. If the manuscript does not meet the required standards, the author is notified with feedback, and the submission may be rejected at this stage.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

After passing the initial screening, the manuscript is assigned to two to three independent expert reviewers who have expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected from the journal’s pool of experts, and each manuscript is typically reviewed by specialists in the relevant field.

• Reviewer Selection: The editorial team carefully selects reviewers based on their expertise, academic background, and previous work.

• Confidentiality: Reviewers are asked to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and its contents. They should not share or discuss the manuscript with unauthorized individuals.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. If any conflicts exist, alternative reviewers are chosen.

3. The Peer Review Process

Our journals follow the double-blind peer review process, meaning both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other. This approach ensures that reviews are objective and impartial.

• Review Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Scientific Quality: Is the research original, sound, and methodologically rigorous?

  • Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written, with clear arguments and structure?

  • Relevance: Does the manuscript contribute to the existing body of knowledge in its field?

  • Ethical Considerations: Are there any ethical concerns, such as conflicts of interest or lack of ethical approval for research involving human or animal subjects?

  • Presentation: Are the figures, tables, and references appropriately formatted and relevant to the manuscript?

• Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback, including suggestions for improvement or revision. They recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or minimal revisions.

  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor revisions before it can be accepted.

  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes, but it has potential for publication if revised.

  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

4. Author Revisions

Once reviewers provide their feedback, the editorial team makes a decision based on the reviews. The author is notified with the following outcomes:

• Decision Notification: Authors receive feedback from the reviewers along with the editor’s decision (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject).

• Revisions: If revisions are required, authors are given a specified period (typically 2-4 weeks) to make changes to their manuscript and resubmit the revised version along with a response letter that addresses the reviewers’ comments.

• Clarifications: Authors may be asked to provide clarifications or additional explanations regarding the feedback received.

5. Second Round of Review (If Applicable)

If significant revisions are made, the manuscript is sent for a second round of review. The same reviewers may be involved, or new reviewers may be invited to assess the changes.

• Reevaluation: Reviewers evaluate whether the revisions have addressed the concerns raised during the first round of review.

• Final Decision: Based on the reviewers’ assessments, the editorial team makes a final decision on whether the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

6. Final Decision and Publication

Once the manuscript is accepted, it undergoes the following steps:

• Copyediting: The manuscript is reviewed by the journal’s copyeditor to ensure proper formatting, grammar, and style.

• Proofreading: The author is provided with the final version of the manuscript to review and approve before publication.

• Publication: Once the final approval is given, the article is published online in the journal’s next available issue.

Ongoing Updates: In the case of online-first publication, articles are published immediately after the final version is approved, and they will appear in the journal’s regular issue later.

7. Transparency and Ethical Standards

Throughout the entire peer-review process, Hansen Scientific Publication Society maintains transparency and adheres to ethical standards to ensure the integrity of the publication:

• Reviewer Anonymity: As part of the double-blind review process, the identities of the reviewers and authors are kept confidential to avoid any bias or influence.

• Handling Conflicts of Interest: Any potential conflicts of interest are carefully managed, and if necessary, a new reviewer is selected to maintain the objectivity of the review process.

• Appeals: Authors may appeal decisions by contacting the editorial team if they believe the review process was not conducted fairly.

8. Post-Publication Review and Corrections

After publication, readers and researchers are encouraged to provide feedback on the article. If errors or issues are identified in published articles, the journal follows a formal process for issuing corrections or retractions when necessary.