🔍 Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before external peer review. The editor or editorial team evaluates the manuscript for:

• Compatibility with the journal’s aims and scope
• Basic scientific and academic quality
• Compliance with manuscript formatting and submission requirements
• Completeness of required author and manuscript information
• Compliance with relevant ethical requirements
• Overall suitability for peer review

The editorial team may also assess the manuscript for potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text reuse, or other concerns that could affect its suitability for publication.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or raise significant concerns may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

📋 Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Before external peer review, manuscripts are normally screened using Turnitin or an equivalent similarity-detection system.

Similarity reports are assessed by the editorial team in context rather than solely on the basis of a numerical similarity percentage. Where substantial inappropriate overlap, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unacceptable text reuse is identified, appropriate action may be taken in accordance with the relevant LQP publication ethics and plagiarism policies.

👨‍🔬 Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally sent to 4-5 independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on relevant academic or professional expertise and their ability to provide an objective and independent assessment.

Where possible, reviewers should have no significant conflict of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the research being evaluated. Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

⚖️ Double-Blind Peer Review

LQP normally uses a double-blind peer review system.

Under this system:

• Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
• Review reports and editorial correspondence are treated confidentially.
• Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors.
• Authors and reviewers should not communicate directly about the manuscript during the review process.

Authors are encouraged to submit an appropriately anonymized manuscript where required by the journal's submission instructions.

🧾 Peer Review Assessment

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts according to appropriate scholarly and scientific standards. Depending on the nature of the manuscript, assessment may include:

• Originality and significance of the work
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Clarity of research objectives or questions
• Appropriateness of the methodology
• Validity and reliability of the research
• Quality and appropriateness of statistical analysis, where applicable
• Presentation and interpretation of results
• Adequacy and relevance of references
• Ethical considerations
• Quality of the discussion
• Whether the conclusions are supported by the findings
• Overall contribution to the relevant field

Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve their manuscript.

🔒 Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the editor considers the reviewers’ reports and may make one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantial further revision.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements before a final decision can be made.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision. Authors may be required to address significant methodological, analytical, interpretive, or presentation-related concerns.
• Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication.

A reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

📝 Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

• A revised manuscript
• A detailed response to the reviewers’ comments
• A clear indication or explanation of the changes made

Where appropriate, revised manuscripts are returned to the same reviewers for further assessment. Additional rounds of revision may be requested when necessary to resolve substantive concerns.

📌 Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.

The decision may take into account:

1. Reviewer recommendations
2. Scientific and academic quality
3. Methodological soundness
4. Authors’ responses to reviewer comments
5. Ethical considerations
6. Compliance with the relevant journal and LQP policies
7. Suitability of the manuscript for publication

The number of reviewers recommending acceptance or rejection does not automatically determine the final decision.

🎖 Peer Review Timeline

LQP aims to provide an efficient peer review process.

Under normal circumstances:

• Initial editorial decision: approximately 1-2 weeks
• External peer review: normally 3-4 weeks

These timeframes are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, subject area, revision requirements, and other circumstances.

📍 Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscripts or review materials with unauthorized persons
• Use unpublished information for personal benefit
• Disclose their review assignment
• Contact authors directly regarding the manuscript
• Use confidential information obtained during review for research or other purposes

Editors and reviewers are expected to protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts throughout the review and editorial process.

🧠 Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline an invitation where they have a significant personal, professional, financial, academic, or other conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment.

If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting an assignment, the reviewer should inform the editor immediately.

🧑‍🔬 Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly quality, originality, integrity, and suitability of the manuscript.

LQP expects editors to make editorial decisions independently and fairly, without inappropriate influence from authors, reviewers, commercial interests, or other external parties.

Acceptance or rejection should not be determined by commercial considerations.

🗂 Publication Ethics

LQP is committed to responsible scholarly publishing and follows recognized principles of publication ethics, including relevant guidance from organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) where applicable.

Concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, unethical research, peer-review manipulation, or other forms of research or publication misconduct may be investigated under the relevant LQP policies.

📝 Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit an appeal when they believe that a significant procedural error, misunderstanding, or relevant new information may have affected an editorial decision.

Appeals should provide specific and substantive reasons and should be submitted in accordance with the applicable Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Complaints concerning editorial or peer review processes will be handled fairly and confidentially.

📜 Applicability to LQP Journals

This Peer Review Process represents the general peer review framework of Lumina Quest Publishing (LQP) and applies to journals published by LQP.

LQP reserves the right to modify its peer review procedures when necessary to maintain academic quality, research integrity, ethical standards, and the effective operation of its journals.