At SciMeTech, the peer review process is the cornerstone of our commitment to academic excellence. We adhere to a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure the integrity, objectivity, and quality of all published content. This policy aligns with COPE guidelines.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Assessment: All submissions are first reviewed by the editorial office to ensure they meet the journal’s scope and formatting requirements. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fail to meet these criteria.
2. Plagiarism Screening: Submissions are screened using iThenticate to detect plagiarism. Manuscripts with significant overlap will be rejected.
3. Assignment to Editors: Suitable manuscripts are assigned to an editor with expertise in the relevant field.
4. Reviewer Selection: The editor selects two or more independent reviewers who possess the appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
5. Double-Blind Review: Reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the process to ensure objectivity and impartiality.
6. Reviewer Reports: Reviewers provide detailed feedback on the manuscript, focusing on originality, methodology, clarity, and significance. Recommendations may include acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
7. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer reports, the editor makes the final decision and communicates it to the authors. Authors are expected to address all reviewer comments in their revisions.
8. Final Approval: Revised manuscripts undergo a final review by the editor to ensure all issues have been addressed before acceptance for publication.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality of published research. We expect reviewers to:

• Provide constructive, fair, and unbiased feedback.
• Evaluate manuscripts within the agreed timeline.
• Maintain confidentiality and avoid sharing manuscript content.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.
• Focus on originality, methodology, clarity, and significance of the work.

Author Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office and include detailed reasons for disagreement. The editorial team will review appeals and consult additional reviewers if necessary. All decisions on appeals are final.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors, reviewers, and authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest to ensure a transparent and ethical review process. For details, please refer to our Conflict of Interest Policy.

Reporting Misconduct

To report concerns about the peer review process or potential misconduct, please contact the editorial office at m.eddabbah@scimetech.com. All reports will be treated confidentially and investigated thoroughly.