Editorial Process

 

 

SMR operates a rigorous, transparent, and scholar-led peer review process designed to maximize research quality and integrity. All submissions are managed by researchers and academic editors, with full procedural support from the SMR Editorial Office.

Submitted manuscripts are handled according to the journal workflow. Authors are encouraged to pay close attention to the pre-check stage, as this screening step helps identify scope, rigor, and compliance issues early and can reduce the likelihood of desk rejection.

Peer review at SMR is conducted under a double-blind model and includes assessments from at least two independent reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision made by the Editor-in-Chief or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Notes on each step are provided below.

Pre-check

The pre-screening stage consists of two complementary steps: a technical pre-check conducted by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check conducted by an academic editor.

Immediately after submission, the journal’s Managing Editor performs the technical pre-check to assess:

Following the technical check, the handling academic editor is notified and invited to perform the editorial pre-check. Depending on the submission type, this academic editor may be the Editor-in-Chief (regular submissions), the Guest Editor (Special Issue submissions), the Topic Editor (Topic submissions), the Collection Editor (Topical Collection submissions), or—where conflicts of interest arise—another Editorial Board member appointed by or approved by the Editor-in-Chief. During editorial pre-check, the academic editor evaluates the submission’s fit with the journal’s scope and its overall scientific soundness, including the relevance of references and the appropriateness and correctness of the applied methodology. At this stage, the academic editor may decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions prior to peer review, or proceed to peer review and recommend suitable reviewers.

To protect editorial independence, Guest Editors, Topic Editors, and Collection Editors cannot make decisions on their own submitted manuscripts, as this would constitute a conflict of interest. In such cases, an independent Editorial Board member will be assigned to handle the editorial decisions. The Guest Editor/Topic Editor/Collection Editor will not be able to access the review process except in their role as author. Similarly, the Editor-in-Chief and other Editorial Board members cannot access the review process of their own manuscripts except in their role as author.

Peer Review

From submission to final decision or publication, one dedicated SMR staff member coordinates the review process and serves as the main point of contact for authors, academic editors, and reviewers, ensuring consistent communication and efficient handling.

SMR operates double-blind peer review: authors do not know reviewer identities, and reviewers are unaware of author identities.

For each submitted article, at least two review reports are collected. The academic editor may suggest reviewers during pre-check. Alternatively, SMR editorial staff may invite qualified Editorial Board members, select qualified reviewers from the SMR database, or identify suitable experts through targeted searches of related publications.

Authors may recommend potential reviewers. SMR staff verify that no conflicts of interest exist and will not consider individuals with competing interests. Authors may also identify reviewers they wish to exclude during initial submission; the Editorial Team will respect these requests whenever doing so does not compromise a fair, objective, and thorough assessment.

If SMR operates a reviewer board, eligible reviewers may apply to review a submitted manuscript where this option is available and the authors select it during submission.

All reviewers are expected to meet the following criteria:

Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to:

Reviewers are typically given 7–10 days to complete an initial review via SMR’s online platform (OSS), with extensions available upon request. When assessing a revised manuscript, reviewers are generally asked to submit their report within three days, with extensions also available when needed.

To support academic editors, SMR staff manage communication with reviewers and authors throughout the process. Academic editors may check manuscript status and reviewer identities at any time and can discuss the review process at any stage with SMR staff.

Revision

When minor or major revisions are recommended, SMR staff will request that authors revise the manuscript and prepare a response to reviewer comments before the manuscript is returned to the academic editor. If review reports conflict, or if one or more reviewers recommend rejection, SMR staff will seek guidance from the academic editor before communicating a revision decision to the authors. At this stage, the academic editor may request additional reviewers or further reports where necessary.

Revised versions may or may not be sent back to reviewers, depending on whether reviewers request to see the revised manuscript. By default, reviewers who request major revisions or recommend rejection are typically invited to assess the revised version. All reviewers may access the most recent manuscript version via OSS.

Normally, a maximum of two rounds of major revision is permitted per manuscript. If additional rounds appear necessary, SMR staff will seek a decision from the academic editor. If the required revision time is expected to exceed two months, SMR recommends that authors withdraw the manuscript and resubmit later to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure revisions are completed thoroughly.

Editor Decision

After peer review, the academic editor may make an editorial decision once a minimum of two review reports has been received. Decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or another suitable academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Guest Editors/Topic Editors/Collection Editors cannot make decisions on their own papers; such manuscripts are assigned to an independent Editorial Board member.

When making a decision, the academic editor is expected to consider:

Possible decisions include: accept in current form, accept with minor revisions, request revision, request an additional reviewer, reject and decline resubmission, or reject but encourage resubmission. Reviewers provide recommendations, and academic editors may disagree when justified; in such cases, the decision rationale should be explained for the benefit of authors and reviewers. Where an academic editor supports acceptance despite a reviewer’s recommendation to reject, SMR staff may seek a second independent opinion from an Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief before communicating the final decision.

Only academic editors can accept articles for publication. SMR staff communicate decisions to authors but never make acceptance decisions. SMR staff and Editorial Board members (including the Editor-in-Chief) do not handle their own academic work; such submissions are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers and decided upon by other editors without conflicts of interest.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by contacting the SMR Editorial Office via email. Appeals must include a detailed justification and point-by-point responses to reviewer/editor comments. Appeals are only considered following a “reject and decline resubmission” decision and must be submitted within three months of the decision date; appeals that do not meet these requirements will not be considered.

The Managing Editor forwards the manuscript and relevant materials (including referee identities) to a designated Editorial Board member for an advisory recommendation, which may support acceptance, further peer review, or upholding the original decision. The Editor-in-Chief validates the final outcome. A rejection decision at the appeal stage is final.

Production

SMR’s in-house teams manage production for accepted manuscripts, including language editing, copyediting, and conversion to XML. Language editing is carried out by professional English editing staff. In the small number of cases where extensive editing or formatting is required, SMR may offer an English editing service for an additional fee with the authors’ prior approval. Authors are also welcome to use other English editing services or consult a native English-speaking colleague.

 

Publishing Standards and Guidelines?

SMR follows the following guidelines and standards for its journals:

FAIR Principles cover guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse of data.

PRISMA covers systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors are recommended to complete the checklist and flow diagram and include it with their submission.

ARRIVE contains guidelines for reporting in vivo experiments. Authors are recommended to verify their work against the checklist and include it with their submission.

iThenticate is an industry-standard software for plagiarism detection. Used during the first screening of a manuscript or pre-check, it can also be used at any stage of the peer review process and especially before the acceptance of a manuscript for publication.

Compliance with the standards and guidelines above will be taken into account during the final decision and any discrepancies should be clearly explained by the authors. We recommend that authors highlight relevant guidelines in their cover letter.

Editorial Independence

All articles published by SMR are peer-reviewed and assessed by our independent Editorial Boards, and SMR staff are not involved in decisions to accept manuscripts. When making a decision, we expect the academic editor to make it based solely upon:

In all of our journals and in every aspect of our operation, SMR policies are informed by the mission to make science and research findings open and accessible as widely and rapidly as possible