Peer Review Policy

Gnoscience Publishing House is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, editorial integrity, and ethical publishing. All manuscripts submitted to journals published by Gnoscience Publishing House undergo a rigorous editorial evaluation and peer-review process to ensure that published research is original, scientifically sound, ethically conducted, and relevant to the journal's scope.

The primary objective of peer review is to assist editors in making fair, objective, and informed publication decisions while providing authors with constructive feedback to improve the quality of their manuscripts.

Peer Review Model

Unless otherwise stated on the journal's website, Gnoscience Publishing House journals follow a single-blind peer-review model.

Under this model:

Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors.
Reviewers have access to the names and affiliations of the authors.
Editorial decisions are made independently based on reviewer recommendations and editorial evaluation.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening before peer review.

During this stage, the editorial office evaluates:

Compliance with the journal's scope.
Completeness of the submission.
Adherence to author guidelines.
Scientific relevance.
Ethical compliance.
Overall presentation and language quality.
Similarity screening for potential plagiarism.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external peer review.

Plagiarism Screening

All submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software before being considered for peer review.

Manuscripts containing:

Significant plagiarism
Duplicate publication
Self-plagiarism
Data manipulation
Image manipulation
Fabricated or falsified results

may be rejected immediately in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

Reviewer Selection

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter.

Reviewers are selected based on:

Subject expertise
Publication record
Previous reviewing experience
Academic qualifications
Absence of conflicts of interest

Editors make every effort to ensure an objective, balanced, and unbiased review process.

Number of Reviewers

Most manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Depending on the manuscript's complexity or the reviewers' recommendations, the handling editor may invite additional reviewers before making a final editorial decision.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
Evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly.
Assess scientific quality and originality.
Identify methodological strengths and weaknesses.
Evaluate ethical compliance.
Provide constructive comments to improve the manuscript.
Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the review.
Complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers should not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal research or professional advantage.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

Originality and novelty
Scientific significance
Methodological rigor
Data quality
Statistical analysis (where applicable)
Ethical compliance
Clarity of presentation
Quality of figures and tables
Appropriateness of references
Overall contribution to the field

Recommendations should be supported by clear, constructive comments.

Editorial Decision

After reviewer reports have been received, the handling editor evaluates:

Reviewer recommendations
Scientific quality
Novelty
Ethical considerations
Relevance to the journal
Author responses to reviewer comments

The final editorial decision is made by the Handling Editor after careful consideration of the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's editorial policies.

Possible editorial decisions include:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

Reviewer recommendations serve as advisory opinions and do not automatically determine the editorial decision.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests should submit:

A revised manuscript.
A detailed point-by-point response addressing each reviewer comment.

Failure to respond adequately to reviewer comments may result in rejection.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
Discuss unpublished work outside the review process.
Use unpublished information for personal benefit.

Confidentiality is maintained throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their assessment.

Examples include:

Financial interests
Personal relationships
Institutional affiliations
Collaborative relationships
Academic competition

Individuals with significant conflicts of interest should decline participation in the review process.

Ethical Considerations

Editors and reviewers evaluate manuscripts for compliance with accepted ethical standards, including:

Human research ethics
Animal research ethics
Informed consent
Patient confidentiality
Clinical trial registration (where applicable)
Data integrity
Responsible reporting of research

Where ethical concerns arise, the editorial office may request additional documentation before proceeding.

Appeals

Authors who believe an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a written appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals should include:

Manuscript title and identification number.
Detailed justification.
Supporting evidence, where applicable.

Appeals are reviewed independently by the editorial team. The outcome of the appeal is considered final.

Reviewer Recognition

Gnoscience Publishing House greatly values the voluntary contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless a reviewer expressly agrees to public recognition in accordance with the journal's policies.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based solely on:

Scientific merit
Originality
Ethical compliance
Methodological quality
Relevance to the journal

Editorial decisions are not influenced by:

Author nationality
Institutional affiliation
Race
Gender
Religion
Political beliefs
Commercial interests
Article Processing Charges (APCs)

Commitment to Quality

Gnoscience Publishing House is committed to providing a transparent, fair, timely, and rigorous peer-review process that promotes scientific integrity, supports authors in improving their work, and ensures the publication of high-quality scholarly research.