Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Holistence Review applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution of published manuscripts. All editorial and peer-review processes are managed through the journal's online submission system.

The peer-review process is structured as follows:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated according to the following criteria:

• Relevance to the journal's aim and scope.
• Compliance with the author guidelines and submission requirements.
• Originality, scholarly contribution, and clarity of purpose.
• Methodological soundness and academic quality.
• Language quality and readability.
• Ethical compliance, including ethics committee approval where applicable.
• Similarity, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and research integrity concerns.

Submitted manuscripts are screened using iThenticate or other appropriate similarity-checking tools. Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, lack originality, fail to meet basic academic or ethical standards, contain serious methodological problems, or show unacceptable similarity may be rejected during the initial editorial screening before external peer review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewer selection is managed by the Section Editor and/or the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account subject expertise, independence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations. Reviewers must decline the invitation if they have a conflict of interest or if they cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe.

3. Double-Blind Evaluation

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review model:

• Author identities are concealed from reviewers.
• Reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

Authors are responsible for preparing a blinded manuscript file that does not reveal author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding information, or other identifying details. Editors may return manuscripts to authors for anonymization if required.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, methodology, theoretical and/or empirical contribution, clarity, structure, ethical compliance, and relevance to the field. The standard review period is approximately 30 days, although this period may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, the Section Editor may provide a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Minor Revisions Required: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision.
• Major Revisions Required: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be sent for further review.
• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires significant restructuring and must undergo a new review cycle.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized handling editor in accordance with the journal's editorial policies. The decision letter and anonymized reviewer comments are communicated to the corresponding author through the submission system.

5. Author Revisions

If revisions are requested, authors must revise the manuscript carefully in response to reviewer and editor comments. Authors are required to submit a detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where applicable, why a suggested change was not made.

Recommended revision deadlines are:

• Minor revisions: 21 days.
• Major revisions: 60 days. Extensions may be requested with a valid justification.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor or returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, depending on the extent of revisions and the nature of the reviewer comments.

6. Final Decision and Acceptance

The final editorial decision is based on reviewer reports, author revisions, editorial assessment, ethical compliance, and the manuscript's contribution to the journal's aim and scope. Acceptance does not depend on any fee, payment, or financial contribution. Journal of Awareness does not charge submission fees, review fees, article processing charges (APCs), acceptance fees, or publication fees.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made unfairly may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief with a clear and evidence-based justification. Appeals must address the academic, methodological, or ethical grounds for reconsideration. The journal may consult additional editors or reviewers when evaluating an appeal.

Complaints related to editorial process, peer review, publication ethics, or conflicts of interest are handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy and COPE Core Practices.

8. Post-Acceptance Production and Proof Control

Following acceptance, the manuscript undergoes copyediting, typesetting, metadata preparation, DOI assignment, and production checks. A galley proof is sent to the corresponding author for final review before publication. At this stage, only minor typographical, formatting, or production-related corrections are permitted; substantial changes to content, data, analysis, conclusions, or authorship are not allowed.

9. Confidentiality and Ethical Oversight

All parties involved in the peer-review process must maintain confidentiality. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for personal advantage or disclose information about submissions to unauthorized individuals.

The journal monitors the peer-review process to ensure fairness, transparency, timeliness, and compliance with publication ethics.