Peer Review Policy

Star Mountain Publishing is committed to advancing scholarly communication through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. This policy outlines the established practices designed to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, ensure the validity and significance of published research, and support the scholarly community. 

All submissions to Star Mountain Publishing journals undergo thorough editorial assessment and double-blind peer review, where author and reviewer identities are concealed to minimize bias and ensure objective evaluation. The entire process is managed through an online submission system that records all communications, decisions, and reviewer comments, ensuring full accountability and traceability throughout the editorial process.

 

Peer Review Process

Manuscript Submission

Authors should register and log in to the online submission system to submit the manuscript and all supporting files, ensuring all information is correct before final submission. Specific formatting and content requirements are outlined in the journal's Author Guidelines. The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all co-authors have read and approved the submission.

Initial Screening and Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial administrative and technical screening by the Editorial Office. Comprised of professional publishing staff, the Editorial Office ensures operational efficiency and checks for:

  • Adherence to submission guidelines, formatting, and language standards.
  • Assessment of fit with the journal's Aims and Scope.
  • Checks for plagiarism, authorship issues, declared conflicts of interest, and compliance with ethical policies for research involving humans and animals.
  • Manuscripts failing this screening may be returned to authors for correction or rejected without peer review.

Editorial Assessment by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC)

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) for scope, originality, and overall merit. The EiC may reject the manuscript at this stage if it is deemed unsuitable.

Assignment to an Academic Editor

Manuscripts that pass the EiC's assessment are assigned to an appropriate Academic Editor (typically a member of the Editorial Board), who will take charge of the subsequent peer review process and is referred to as the Handling Editor.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial check are advanced to the peer review stage. The assigned Academic Editor initiates the review by securing a minimum of two independent expert assessments. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise, demonstrated scholarly judgment, and the confirmed absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Guidelines: Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript critically on:

  • Originality and significance of the research.
  • Scientific rigor, validity of methodology, and data analysis.
  • Clarity of presentation, logical structure, and quality of language.
  • Accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness of references.
  • Ethical conduct of research and reporting.

Confidentiality: All participants must treat the manuscript, review process, and related communications as strictly confidential.

Editorial Decision

Based on an evaluation of the reviewer reports and their independent assessment, the Academic Editor (Handling Editor) provides a clear recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC). The EiC makes the final decision, which will be one of the following:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further modification.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is near acceptance but requires minor clarifications or corrections. Authors are given 14 days to submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response to all the reviewers' comments.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript shows potential but requires substantial methodological, analytical, or interpretive revisions. Authors are given a maximum of 60 days to undertake revisions and must provide a detailed point-by-point response. The revised manuscript will normally be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. If the original reviewers cannot undertake the re-review due to unforeseen circumstances, the Academic Editor may appoint new reviewers to evaluate the revised manuscript. Ordinarily, a maximum of two rounds of major revision is permitted.
  • Reject: The manuscript has fundamental flaws, lacks originality, or is outside the journal's scope. A reject decision is final unless a formal appeal is submitted.

Author Revisions

Mandatory Response:

Authors should submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response document, addressing every comment from reviewers and editors. Disagreements should be explained politely with supporting evidence.

Timeliness: If authors do not respond within the required revision time, the submission may be administratively withdrawn. Authors are welcome to resubmit, but the manuscript will be treated as a new submission.

Final Acceptance and Production

Once a manuscript successfully completes peer review and the Academic Editor confirms that all concerns are adequately addressed, the Academic Editor recommends final acceptance to the EiC, who issues the formal acceptance. The manuscript then enters the production phase for copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. Authors are required to review the final manuscript before the article can advance to publication.

Post-Publication

Upon acceptance, all articles are assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and published online in the final version. Star Mountain Publishing is committed to the long-term preservation and accessibility of published research. Articles are permanently archived with trusted digital repositories (e.g., Portico, CLOCKSS) to ensure their continued availability.

 

Appeal Policy

Star Mountain Publishing is committed to a fair and transparent review process. Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions under specific circumstances.

Grounds for Appeal: Appeals are considered only for final decisions of "Reject" and must be based on clear evidence of a substantive error in the review process (e.g., factual misinterpretation of the manuscript content, a reviewer's clear conflict of interest that was overlooked, or a major misunderstanding of the study's scope). Disagreement with the scholarly judgment on novelty or priority is not sufficient grounds.

Procedure: To initiate an appeal, the corresponding author must submit a formal written letter to the Editorial Office within 15 working days of the decision date. The letter must clearly state the reasons for the appeal and provide specific, evidence-based counter-arguments to the reviewers' and editor's rejections.

Appeal Handling: The appeal will be managed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Academic Editor not involved in the original decision. It will be assessed by at least two new independent editorial board members or senior experts. The process is confidential. Only one appeal per manuscript is permitted and the outcome of this appeal is final. A decision will be communicated to the corresponding author within 30 working days upon receipt of the formal appeal letter. Possible outcomes of the appeal include upholding the original rejection decision or returning the manuscript for a new round of review.