SOLAV Journal employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and significance of published research. Our review system is designed to be fair, constructive, and timely, supporting our mission to advance interdisciplinary applied research.
Average Review Timeline
From submission to first decision: 4-6 weeks | From acceptance to publication: 2-3 weeks. We prioritize timely decisions while maintaining thorough evaluation.
Review Process Overview
Step-by-Step Review Flow
Initial Screening
Editorial check for scope, format, and ethical compliance within 3-5 days.
Reviewer Assignment
Matching with 2-3 expert reviewers based on interdisciplinary relevance.
Double-Blind Review
Anonymized evaluation by reviewers within 3-4 weeks.
Editorial Decision
Decision based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment.
Revision & Resubmission
Authors address comments and resubmit within specified timeframe.
Final Acceptance
Editor verifies revisions and makes final acceptance decision.
Double-Blind Policy
- Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other
- Reviewers cannot access author identities
- Authors cannot access reviewer identities
- Editors know all identities for process management
- Promotes unbiased, merit-based evaluation
Quality Assurance
- All reviewers are active researchers in relevant fields
- Minimum of 2 reviewers per manuscript
- Third reviewer sought for conflicting recommendations
- Editorial board provides final quality oversight
- Continuous reviewer performance evaluation
Review Criteria & Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on comprehensive criteria tailored for interdisciplinary applied research:
Scientific Quality (40%)
- Originality & Innovation: Novelty of approach, concepts, or findings
- Methodological Rigor: Appropriate design, execution, and analysis
- Data & Evidence: Sufficient, valid, and properly interpreted data
- Reproducibility: Clear methods enabling replication
Scholarly Contribution (30%)
- Significance: Impact on field or practical applications
- Interdisciplinary Relevance: Bridges between disciplines
- Literature Integration: Proper contextualization within existing knowledge
- Theoretical/Applied Value: Advances theory or practice
Presentation & Clarity (20%)
- Structure & Organization: Logical flow and coherent argument
- Clarity of Writing: Accessible to interdisciplinary audience
- Figures & Tables: Clear, informative, and properly labeled
- Adherence to Guidelines: Follows journal formatting requirements
Ethical Standards (10%)
- Ethical Compliance: Proper approvals for human/animal research
- Conflict Disclosure: Complete transparency of interests
- Authorship Integrity: Appropriate credit and contributions
- Citation & Attribution: Proper acknowledgment of sources
Constructive Feedback Philosophy
Our reviewers are encouraged to provide specific, actionable feedback that helps authors improve their work, regardless of the decision outcome. Review comments should be professional, respectful, and focused on strengthening the research.
Possible Decisions & Next Steps
| Decision | Description | Author Action Required | Typical Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accept | Manuscript accepted as is (rare) | Minor formatting adjustments only | Publication in 2-3 weeks |
| Minor Revision | Acceptable with minor corrections | Address specific comments; resubmit | Resubmit within 4 weeks |
| Major Revision | Potentially acceptable after substantial revision | Significant changes; point-by-point response | Resubmit within 8 weeks |
| Reject | Not suitable for publication in current form | May resubmit as new manuscript after major overhaul | No resubmission of same version |
| Transfer Offer | More suitable for another SOLAV section | Accept/decline transfer to suggested section | Decision within 1 week |
Revision Guidelines
For revised manuscripts: 1) Submit a detailed response letter addressing all reviewer comments point-by-point, 2) Use "Track Changes" or highlight modifications in the manuscript, 3) Resubmit within the specified timeframe. Extensions may be requested via email to the handling editor.
For Reviewers
Becoming a Reviewer
We welcome qualified researchers to join our reviewer panel. Requirements:
- PhD or equivalent research experience
- Minimum 3 publications in relevant fields
- Active research profile
- Commitment to timely, constructive reviews
Reviewer Recognition
We value our reviewers' contributions:
- Annual certificate of appreciation
- Acknowledgement on journal website (optional)
- Priority consideration for editorial board
- Waived APC for one submission annually
- Publons integration for credit tracking
Related Information
For complete publishing details, please consult our related policy pages:
Review Process Questions?
Contact our editorial office for questions about the review process, status inquiries, or to express interest in becoming a reviewer.
[email protected] Submit Manuscript
