Keith Publications | Open Access Scholarly Publishing

Peer Review Policy

Overview

Keith Publications employs rigorous peer review to ensure published research meets high standards of scientific quality, methodological soundness, and ethical conduct.

Our Commitment: We follow COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and strive for transparent, fair, and constructive peer review.

Peer Review Principles

  • Quality: Ensure scientific and methodological rigor
  • Fairness: Impartial evaluation regardless of author identity
  • Confidentiality: Protect unpublished manuscripts
  • Timeliness: Provide timely decisions to authors
  • Constructiveness: Offer helpful feedback for improvement
  • Transparency: Clear processes and criteria

Peer Review Models

Double-Blind

Standard model for most submissions. Reviewers and authors are anonymous to each other.

Single-Blind

Used for some article types. Reviewers know authors' identities, but not vice versa.

Open Peer Review

Optional model. Reviewers' names are published with the article upon their consent.

Review Model by Article Type

Article TypeReview ModelReviewers
Research ArticleDouble-Blind2–3
Review ArticleSingle-Blind1–2
Short CommunicationDouble-Blind2
Case ReportDouble-Blind2

Peer Review Process

Step 1: Initial Check

Editorial staff check for completeness, formatting, and scope. Manuscripts not meeting basic requirements are returned without review.

Step 2: Editor Assessment

Associate Editor evaluates scientific quality, novelty, and suitability. May reject without review if not meeting journal standards.

Step 3: Reviewer Selection

Editor identifies 2–3 suitable reviewers based on expertise, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Step 4: Review Period

Reviewers submit reports within 3–4 weeks, evaluating scientific quality, methodology, and significance.

Step 5: Decision

Editor considers reviews and makes decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

Step 6: Revision & Final Decision

Authors revise addressing reviewers' comments. Revised manuscript may be re-reviewed. Editor makes final acceptance decision.

Time to First Decision

  • Target: 4–6 weeks from submission
  • Rejection without review: 1–2 weeks
  • With revisions: Additional 2–4 weeks after resubmission

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Essential Criteria

  • PhD or equivalent research experience
  • Publication record in relevant field
  • No conflicts of interest with authors
  • Willingness to review within timeframe

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline if they have recent collaboration (past 3 years), personal relationships, financial interest, or institutional affiliation with authors.

Review Criteria

Scientific Quality (40%)

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific rigor and validity
  • Appropriate methodology and statistical analysis
  • Sound conclusions supported by data

Significance and Impact (30%)

  • Importance to the field and relevance to journal scope
  • Potential for advancing knowledge

Presentation and Ethics (30%)

  • Clear and logical organization; appropriate language
  • Proper citations, no plagiarism, appropriate ethics approval
  • Data availability and conflict of interest disclosure

Ethics and Integrity

COPE Compliance

We follow COPE guidelines for handling allegations of misconduct, managing conflicts of interest, ensuring confidentiality, and dealing with complaints and appeals.

Ethical Issues Reviewers Should Report

  • Suspected plagiarism or text recycling
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Image manipulation beyond acceptable limits
  • Unethical research involving humans or animals
  • Duplicate publication or redundancy

Appeal Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe there was a procedural error, misinterpretation, or the reviewer was unqualified. Submit an appeal letter within 30 days of decision, addressing specific concerns point-by-point.

Note: Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewer opinions are not considered.

Reviewer Recognition

  • Certificate of Review: Annual certificate for contributions
  • Public Acknowledgement: List of reviewers published annually
  • Reviewer of the Year: Annual award for exceptional reviewers
  • Publons Integration: Automatic verification of reviews
  • APC Discounts: Discount on APCs for future submissions

Contact

For questions about our peer review policy:

Editorial Office — Keith Publications
Email: [email protected]

Additional Resources