Peer Review Process

Initially, all manuscripts undergo a preliminary editorial assessment, after which they are sent for peer review. Scientific Route OÜ® applies double-blind peer review to scientific manuscripts submitted for publication in its journals and monographs. All scientific manuscripts undergo peer review prior to publication and before the final decision on acceptance is made. All reviewers are instructed to review submissions in line with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. 

This process involves the following:

1. 1. All manuscripts submitted are sent to at least two external and independent experts in the corresponding field who are not members of the publisher’s editorial staff. The manuscript passes double-blind peer review; neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other..
   2. Reviewers’ comments are transmitted to the authors, together with possible recommendations for the manuscript revision. Based on the peer review results, one of the following recommendations may be made:
      – accept the manuscript for publication (accept);
      – accept the manuscript subject to minor revisions (minor revision);
      – request substantial revisions followed by reconsideration of the manuscript (major revision);
      – reject the manuscript (reject)..
      The editor informs the authors of the decision and, where revisions are required, gives the authors an opportunity to revise the manuscript. The final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the editor of Scientific Route OÜ® on the basis of the reviewers’ reports.

   3. The editor has the right to apply for an additional expert opinion or reject the manuscript even if a positive decision was received from two or more reviewers in cases where falsification/fabrication of data, misinformation, facts threatening health threats, etc. were revealed.

   4. If the reviewers’ recommendations substantially differ, the editor may appoint an additional external and independent expert.

The duration of the double-blind review is 1–6 months

During the double-blind review process, the editor and reviewers undertake to comply with the publication ethics and conflict of interest policies.

Obligations and rights of reviewers:

1. 1. The reviewer undertakes to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript sent to him and not to transfer it to third parties. The reviewer does not have the right to use the material sent to him in any way, except for providing an expert assessment on it.
   2. If the reviewer considers it necessary to obtain an additional expert opinion, he should inform the editor responsible for the respective publication (journal article,  monograph, or chapter of a collective monograph) about it. It will also be appropriate to indicate a specialist to obtain an additional expert opinion. However, the appeal to this specialist can be carried out only through the editor responsible for the respective publication, as the editor may be aware of any conflict of interest.
   3. If the reviewer reveals any conflict of interest, he should refuse to review the manuscript sent to him and inform the editor responsible for the respective publication about it.
   4. The reviewer has the right to refuse to review the manuscript for any reason, which must be immediately reported to the editor responsible for the respective publication.

Obligations and rights of authors:

1. 1. The author undertakes to inform the editor about the presence of any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that may affect the review process.
   2. The author may refuse to make corrections that were provided by reviewers. In this case, the author must scientifically argue his refusal, which will be the beginning of a scientific discussion with the reviewer. In the event that the outcome of this discussion is unsatisfactory, an additional external and independent expert may be involved.
   3. If the author refuses to make the necessary corrections without scientific justification of this fact, the manuscript will be rejected.
   4. If the author suspects the reviewer of misappropriating data or disclosing information about the study to third parties, he must notify the editor responsible for the respective publication. In turn, the editor will initiate the protocol described below.

Actions of the editorial board in case of receiving a complaint about the appropriation or disclosure of manuscript data by the reviewer.

If the editor receives a complaint from the author(s) about the appropriation or disclosure of manuscript data, the following protocol will be implemented (based on the COPE Reviewer scheme suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data):

1. 1. Additional documentary evidence of the accusation will be requested from the author, if none has been provided.
   2. The reviewer will be asked for an explanation of the allegations.
   3. Additional experts and institutions may be involved in this investigation if necessary.
   4. In case of proof of the fact of assignment or disclosure of manuscript data, the reviewer will be removed from the Scientific Route OÜ® reviewer database. A notification will also be sent to the institution of which the reviewer is an employee. In the event that the assigned data has already been published by the reviewer, the editorial board or publisher of the relevant publication and the institutions involved will also be notified.
   5. If the fact of data transfer to third parties is confirmed, the reviewer will be removed from the Scientific Route OÜ® reviewer database. A notification will be sent to the third party stating that he has no right to use the received data in any way. In the event that the data has already been used, all necessary institutions, editorial offices, publishers, and other relevant organizations will be notified to prevent further use of the assigned data.