Please Note
Effective 1 May 2025, MSI Publishers makes all content—past, present, and future—available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Any PDF still displaying ‘© Copyright [YEAR] MSI Publishers. All rights reserved.’ is a technical artifact; the CC BY 4.0 license applies retroactively to all material.
MSI Publishers employs a transparent, multi‐stage peer review workflow designed to uphold the highest standards of scholarly rigor and integrity. From an initial editorial check through to final publication, each manuscript is assessed for originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and clarity. Our process—including double‐blind review, structured reviewer selection, clear revision rounds, and prompt decision timelines—aligns with COPE best practices and leading publisher guidelines to ensure fair, constructive feedback and timely dissemination of reliable research.
Submission and Editorial Triage
Upon receipt via our online portal, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial triage to confirm compliance with submission guidelines (format, scope, and ethical declarations). Manuscripts that fail to meet these baseline criteria are returned immediately to authors with guidance for resubmission.
1.1 Format & Scope Check
• Verification of author details, affiliations, and conflict‐of‐interest statements.
• Assessment of alignment with journal aims and thematic scope.
1.2 Ethical Compliance
• Confirmation of IRB or ethical committee approvals for human/animal studies.
• Plagiarism screening using industry‐standard tools.
Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts passing triage are assigned to an Handling Editor, who identifies 2–4 independent experts based on subject‐matter fit, absence of conflicts, and prior performance as reviewers. Reviewer invitations include anonymized abstracts and clear evaluation guidelines.
Double‐Blind Peer Review
We employ a double‐blind model: reviewers receive redacted manuscripts and authors remain unaware of reviewer identities. Reviewers evaluate submissions on:
• Originality & Significance: Novelty and contribution to the field.
• Methodological Rigor: Appropriateness of study design, data analysis, and reproducibility.
• Clarity & Structure: Logical presentation, coherence of argumentation, and adherence to reporting standards.
• Ethical Standards: Human/animal welfare, informed consent, and disclosure of funding sources.
Reviewers submit detailed comments along with a confidential recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Editorial Decision and Author Feedback
The Handling Editor synthesizes reviewer reports, resolves discrepancies, and issues one of the following decisions within 4–6 weeks of submission:
1. Accept as Is: Rare—manuscript meets all criteria without changes.
2. Minor Revisions: Small edits required; authors typically have 2 weeks to resubmit.
3. Major Revisions: Substantial changes or additional experiments; resubmission deadline of 4–8 weeks.
4. Reject: Manuscript unsuitable; detailed rationale provided to guide future submissions.
Authors receive consolidated comments and a decision letter outlining next steps.
Revision and Re‐Review
Revised manuscripts must include a point‐by‐point response to each reviewer comment. The Handling Editor may:
• Send the revision back to original reviewers for final assessment.
• Make a decision based on the authors’ responses and revisions.
• Prompt re‐review ensures efficient progression to final decision.
Final Acceptance and Production
Upon final acceptance, manuscripts enter production:
• Copyediting for language, style, and formatting consistency.
• Typesetting and generation of proofs for author approval.
• Assignment of DOI and online publication ahead of print.
Authors are given 2–3 days to review proofs before formal publication.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors with disagreements may submit a formal appeal within 2 weeks of decision at support@msipublishers.com Appeals are reviewed by a Senior Editor or an independent committee, following COPE dispute resolution guidelines.
Transparency and Accountability
- Reviewer Recognition: Optional publication of reviewer names post‐acceptance (with consent).
- Review History: Authors may opt to publish anonymized review reports alongside their article.
- Metrics: Time‐to‐first‐decision, acceptance rate, and reviewer performance statistics are monitored quarterly to drive continuous improvement.
