Peer Review Process

This Journal is committed to a rigorous peer review process that ensures the publication of high-quality, original, and reliable research. This policy outlines the steps of our peer review process, including plagiarism scanning, confidentiality, and reviewer responsibilities.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

• Manuscript Submission: Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. Each submission must meet formatting and content requirements as outlined in the author guidelines.
• Plagiarism Scanning: All submissions are screened for plagiarism using software tools such as Turnitin or iThenticate. Manuscripts with significant overlaps with other published work will be flagged, and authors may be asked to revise or clarify any similarities. If plagiarism is found to be intentional, the manuscript may be rejected.
• Editorial Review: The editor-in-chief or managing editor performs an initial review to assess the manuscript's relevance, originality, and adherence to journal standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without peer review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

• Selection of Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more experts in the field for peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and absence of any conflicts of interest with the authors.
• Double-Blind Peer Review: The Quest Journal follows a double-blind review process, ensuring that both authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain confidential. This promotes unbiased evaluations and reduces potential conflicts.

3. Reviewer Guidelines and Responsibilities

• Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript based on originality, methodological rigor, accuracy, clarity, and contribution to the field. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback, highlight areas for improvement, and make recommendations regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.
• Plagiarism Detection: Reviewers are encouraged to report any suspected instances of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical concerns they identify. They may be asked to use additional plagiarism detection tools if necessary to confirm suspicions.
• Timeliness and Confidentiality: Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the allotted timeframe, typically within 2-3 weeks. All manuscripts are treated with confidentiality, and reviewers are prohibited from discussing or using the content outside of the review process.

4. Decision-Making Process

• Reviewer Recommendations: Based on the feedback from reviewers, the editor makes an initial decision. Manuscripts may be accepted, rejected, or sent back to the authors for minor or major revisions.
• Revision Process: If revisions are required, authors are given time to address reviewers’ comments and resubmit the revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts are generally reviewed again by the same reviewers, who verify that their feedback has been adequately addressed.
• Final Decision: The editor-in-chief or managing editor makes the final decision on the manuscript’s acceptance. Authors are notified of the decision along with reviewers' comments, which provide guidance for any further revisions or improvements.

5. Post-Acceptance and Publication Ethics

• Ethics and Compliance: Accepted manuscripts undergo a final ethics check to ensure they comply with journal policies and ethical standards. This includes a final plagiarism check for verification.
• Proofreading and Editing: Manuscripts are copyedited and formatted for consistency, grammar, and clarity before publication. Authors are involved in the proofreading stage to confirm the final version of the manuscript.

6. Transparency and Appeals Process

• Author Appeals: Authors who disagree with the review decision may appeal by providing a detailed response to the editor. Appeals are reviewed independently by the editorial board to ensure fairness.
• Reviewer Transparency: The journal encourages transparency and open dialogue between authors and reviewers while maintaining the anonymity of the peer review process.