Editorial Workflow

Editorial Workflow

The following editorial workflow describes the process followed for manuscripts submitted to journals published by Ptolemy Scientific Research Press (PSR Press). The workflow is designed to ensure that each manuscript is handled fairly, confidentially, professionally, and in accordance with the journal’s aims, scope, editorial standards, publication ethics, and peer-review policy.

Manuscript Submission

After a manuscript is submitted to a journal of PSR Press, the submission is received by the editorial office through the journal’s online submission system or by the method specified by the relevant journal. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is complete and that all required files, declarations, author details, figures, tables, references, and supplementary materials have been submitted.

Submission of a manuscript confirms that the work is original, has not been published previously, is not under consideration elsewhere, and has been approved by all listed authors. The corresponding author must also ensure that ethical approval, consent statements, permission for third-party material, funding information, data availability statements, and competing interest declarations are provided where required.

Initial Quality Control

Once a manuscript has been submitted, it undergoes initial quality control by the editorial office. This stage determines whether the submission is complete, readable, and technically suitable for editorial assessment.

The initial quality control may include checking whether:

• the manuscript file is complete and readable;
• the title, abstract, keywords, author names, and affiliations are provided;
• the corresponding author is clearly identified;
• figures and tables are included and cited correctly;
• references are included and cited in the text;
• required declarations are provided;
• ethical approval or consent statements are included where applicable;
• the manuscript appears to fall within the broad subject area of the journal;
• supplementary files are included where required;
• the manuscript follows the journal’s basic submission requirements.

If essential information or files are missing, the editorial office may return the submission to the author for correction before editorial assessment begins. Passing the initial quality control does not mean that the manuscript has been accepted for peer review or publication.

Assignment to Editor or Guest Editor

After initial quality control, the manuscript is forwarded to an appropriate editor. Regular submissions are usually assigned to a handling editor or editorial board member whose expertise is closest to the subject of the manuscript. Manuscripts submitted to a special issue may be assigned to the relevant guest editor or special issue editor.

The assigned editor or guest editor is responsible for the first academic assessment of the manuscript and for managing the peer-review process where appropriate. In assigning an editor, the journal considers subject expertise, editorial availability, workload, and possible conflicts of interest.

Conflict-of-Interest Screening

Before the peer-review process begins, PSR Press seeks to ensure that the editor, guest editor, editorial board member, and external reviewers involved in the manuscript have no known conflict of interest with the authors or the submitted work.

A conflict of interest may include:

• recent collaboration with any author;
• current or recent employment at the same institution;
• close personal or professional relationship;
• financial interest connected to the research;
• academic competition that may affect impartial judgment;
• supervisory or student relationship;
• involvement in the preparation of the manuscript;
• any situation that could influence, or appear to influence, editorial judgment.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the manuscript should be reassigned to another suitable editor or reviewer. This helps maintain fairness, independence, and trust in the editorial process.

Preliminary Editorial Assessment

The assigned handling editor reviews the manuscript to decide whether it should proceed to external peer review. This assessment is based on the journal’s aims and scope, the quality of the submitted work, originality, clarity, technical soundness, ethical compliance, and potential contribution to the field.

At this stage, the editor may reject the manuscript without external review if:

• the manuscript is outside the aims and scope of the journal;
• the subject matter is not suitable for the journal’s readership;
• the manuscript lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution;
• the language or presentation prevents proper evaluation;
• the methodology, theory, analysis, or argument is seriously inadequate;
• the manuscript contains major ethical concerns;
• the manuscript does not meet basic academic or technical standards;
• the submission appears incomplete, duplicated, or previously published.

If the editor determines that the manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the journal’s scope, the manuscript is sent for external peer review.

Selection of External Reviewers

When a manuscript proceeds to peer review, the handling editor selects suitable external expert reviewers. Reviewers are chosen based on their subject expertise, publication record, knowledge of the field, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewers may be selected from the journal’s reviewer database, editorial board recommendations, previous reviewer records, literature searches, or specialist academic networks. The editor may consider reviewer suggestions provided by authors, but the final choice of reviewers remains the responsibility of the editor.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript objectively, confidentially, and constructively. They should decline the invitation if they do not have appropriate expertise, cannot complete the review within the required time, or have any conflict of interest.

Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript carefully and provide a clear report for the editor and authors. Their evaluation helps the editor reach an informed decision and helps the authors improve the manuscript where revision is possible.

Reviewers are normally asked to evaluate:

• the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope;
• the originality and significance of the work;
• the clarity of the research question or objective;
• the appropriateness of the methodology or theoretical approach;
• the accuracy of results, analysis, proofs, or interpretations;
• the quality of figures, tables, equations, and supplementary material;
• the adequacy and relevance of references;
• the clarity of language, structure, and presentation;
• the strength of the discussion and conclusion;
• ethical issues, data concerns, or possible plagiarism, where noticed.

Reviewers are requested to provide:

• comments for the author;
• confidential comments for the editor, where necessary;
• a recommendation regarding the manuscript;
• a clear explanation supporting their recommendation;
• an indication of whether they are willing to review a revised version.

The possible reviewer recommendations are usually:

• accept;
• minor revision;
• major revision;
• reject.

Reviewers may also upload an annotated manuscript, marked file, or separate review report if their comments are prepared in a document file.

Review Timeline and Editorial Communication

Reviewers are normally given 8 weeks to complete their review report for an original manuscript. This period allows reviewers sufficient time to examine the manuscript carefully, assess its academic and technical quality, and prepare constructive comments for the authors and editor.

For revised manuscripts, reviewers may be asked to evaluate the revised version within a timeframe set by the editorial office, depending on the extent of revision required. Extensions may be granted upon request if the reviewer needs additional time and the editor considers the request reasonable.

Editorial assistants may support the process by handling communication with authors, reviewers, editors, and guest editors. Their role may include sending review invitations, reminders, decision letters, revision requests, and administrative messages. However, academic responsibility for editorial assessment and recommendation remains with the assigned editor or guest editor.

Academic editors may check manuscript status, reviewer invitations, reviewer identities, review reports, and editorial progress at any time. This helps ensure that manuscripts are processed efficiently and that delays are addressed where possible.

Editorial Decision

A peer-review decision normally requires at least two review reports. The handling editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments, recommendations, and overall assessment of the manuscript before making or recommending a decision.

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s own academic assessment, one of the following decisions may be recommended:

• accept;
• minor revision;
• major revision;
• reject.

An acceptance recommendation means that the manuscript is considered suitable for publication, subject to final editorial and production checks. A minor revision decision means that limited corrections are required before the manuscript can be considered further. A major revision decision means that substantial changes are required and the manuscript may need further evaluation. A rejection decision means that the manuscript will not be considered further by the journal in its present form.

The editor is not required to follow reviewer recommendations automatically. The editor considers the quality, reasoning, consistency, and relevance of the reviewer reports and makes an editorial judgment based on the manuscript, the reviews, journal standards, and publication policies.

Revision and Re-Review

If a manuscript receives a minor revision or major revision decision, the corresponding author is invited to revise the manuscript and submit a detailed response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript should not be submitted as a new manuscript. It must be submitted as a revised version of the same submission.

A revised submission should normally include:

• a clean revised manuscript;
• a marked or highlighted version showing changes, if requested;
• a point-by-point response letter;
• revised figures, tables, or supplementary files, where applicable;
• updated declarations or permissions, where necessary.

The response letter should address each reviewer and editor comment individually. Authors should clearly explain what changes were made and indicate where the changes appear in the manuscript. If authors disagree with a comment, they should respond politely and provide an evidence-based explanation.

For revised manuscripts, the editor may make a decision directly or may send the manuscript for another round of review. If further review is needed, the revised manuscript may be returned to the same reviewers together with the authors’ response letter and the previous review comments. New reviewers may be invited if the original reviewers are unavailable, if additional expertise is required, or if the editor considers further assessment necessary.

Final Acceptance and Rejection

If the handling editor recommends acceptance, the manuscript undergoes a final editorial check before formal acceptance is issued. This final check may be conducted by the editor-in-chief, journal editor, or another authorized editorial representative to ensure that the manuscript and its review process comply with the journal’s editorial standards, ethical requirements, peer-review policy, and publication guidelines.

After the final check is completed, the authors are notified of acceptance by the managing editor or editorial office. The manuscript then proceeds to production, which may include copyediting, typesetting, proof preparation, author proof correction, final publication, indexing preparation, and archiving.

If the editor recommends rejection, the rejection decision is communicated to the authors. Rejection may occur after preliminary editorial assessment, after peer review, or after revision if the editor determines that the manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements. If the majority of reviewers recommend rejection and the editor agrees with the assessment, the manuscript may be rejected without further rounds of revision.

Rejected manuscripts are closed in the editorial system. Authors should not resubmit the same manuscript as a new submission unless the journal specifically invites resubmission after substantial revision.

Single-Blind Peer Review, Fairness, and Confidentiality

The peer-review process used by PSR Press journals is single-blind. This means that reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Reviewer identities are treated as confidential and are not disclosed to authors unless the journal has a specific policy allowing disclosure or the reviewer gives permission.

The editorial workflow gives editors the authority to reject manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope, unsuitable in subject matter, poor in quality, ethically problematic, or inaccurate in methods, results, analysis, or conclusions. This authority is necessary to protect the quality and integrity of the journal.

At the same time, the editor cannot act as an external reviewer of the manuscript. If a manuscript proceeds to peer review, assessment must include external expert evaluation, and at least two review reports are required before a peer-review decision is made. This requirement helps ensure that decisions are based on independent academic assessment rather than on the opinion of a single editor alone.

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, editorial assistants, and other authorized personnel must not share, use, copy, or discuss submitted manuscripts outside the editorial and peer-review process. Reviewers must not use unpublished material from a manuscript for their own work or disclose the contents of the manuscript to others.

This workflow is intended to provide a fair, impartial, rigorous, and transparent editorial process for manuscripts submitted to PSR Press journals. It supports academic quality, responsible peer review, editorial independence, confidentiality, and the publication of reliable scholarly work.