Peer Review Process

Premium Handbook of Science and Technology implements a rigorous peer review process to ensure scientific quality and integrity of all published articles. The process is structured in two main stages: desk review and double-blind evaluation.

Review Process Stages

1. Editorial Desk Review

Editors perform a preliminary analysis of submitted manuscripts. At this stage, articles are assessed for originality, alignment with the journal scope, scientific relevance, and compliance with editorial guidelines. Content is reviewed anonymously (blind review) to ensure impartiality. Manuscripts outside the scope, with ethical issues, or not meeting basic requirements may be rejected at this stage. Authors are informed of the editorial decision within 30 days of submission.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts approved in the initial step move to the peer review stage, following the double-blind system where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Each article is evaluated by at least two experts selected according to the subject area. Reviewers consider criteria such as:

  • Relevance and originality of the topic
  • Clarity and quality of writing
  • Theoretical foundation and references
  • Methodology and scientific rigor
  • Depth of analysis and consistency of results
  • Contribution to scientific knowledge

The review process uses a standardized form to guide reviewers in the detailed assessment of scientific manuscripts.

Possible Editorial Decisions

  • Accepted
  • Minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Rejected

If necessary, the manuscript may be referred to a third reviewer. Authors receive detailed feedback with recommendations and guidance for any adjustments.

Timeline and Transparency

The peer review process is typically completed within 60 days, considering revision steps and possible author corrections. The entire process is conducted with transparency, confidentiality, and adherence to international scientific best practices.

Ethical Commitment

The journal follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), fostering ethics, integrity, and mutual respect among editors, reviewers, and authors. All parties must declare any conflicts of interest.

Keywords: peer review, double blind review, scientific manuscripts, academic publishing, scientific integrity, editorial ethics, expert review, scientific articles.