SPPH, LLC uses a double-blind peer-review process for Articles, Brief Communications, Reviews, Case Reports. Letters to the editor may be reviewed just by Editorial Team. Correspondence and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors. We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via our secure online system by following the link provided in the editor's email. IT support is available for any technical difficulties.

In general, we asked reviewers to ensure that a paper provides strong evidence for its conclusions; novel; of importance to scientists in the specific field, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines. A paper should represent an advance in the field.

The editorial staff reads all submitted manuscripts. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

If an Editor thin that a paper could be interesting and potentially published, it is sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers (blind with authors' names removed).

There are a few possible outcomes after the review process, which are communicated to the authors: Accept, with or without editorial revisions; invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached; reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission; reject outright, typically on the grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.

 

Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations. An Editor evaluates the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors and considers other information not available to either party. An editor may ask reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. If reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment. If a reviewer does not have access to any published paper necessary for evaluation of a submitted manuscript, the journal will supply the reviewer with a copy. Under these circumstances, the reviewer should send the paper's publication reference required to the editor who sent them the paper to review. The editor will obtain the paper, paying any necessary fees, and send it to the reviewer.

 

SPPH, LLC asks reviewers to assess the various aspects: key results, validity, originality and significance, data & methodology, appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties, conclusions, suggested improvements, references, clarity, and context. SPPH, LLC is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication and believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community. We, therefore, ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offense; conversely, we strongly encourage reviewers to state plainly their opinion of a paper; alternatively, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments. It is the responsibility of journals to administer an effective review system.

 

Editors, authors, and reviewers must keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. SPPH, LLC reserves the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies, journals, and the authors' institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct.