Peer Review Policy

General Principles

European Scientific e-Journal applies peer review as a central part of its editorial process. Peer review helps the Editorial Board evaluate the scholarly quality, originality, methodological clarity, ethical compliance and relevance of submitted manuscripts to the journal’s scope.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are first assessed by the Editorial Office or a responsible editor. Manuscripts that meet the basic editorial requirements may be sent for external peer review. Manuscripts that do not correspond to the journal scope, lack academic structure, contain serious ethical concerns or fail to meet the basic requirements of scholarly publication may be rejected before peer review.

Peer review is advisory to the editorial decision. The final decision on acceptance, revision or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor acting on behalf of the journal.

Initial Editorial Screening

Before peer review, each submitted manuscript undergoes initial editorial screening. At this stage, the Editorial Office or responsible editor checks whether the manuscript:

• corresponds to the aim and scope of the journal;
• contains a clear scholarly argument or research purpose;
• has sufficient academic structure, abstract, keywords and references;
• includes complete author information, institutional affiliation and corresponding author email;
• complies with the journal’s publication ethics and authorship requirements;
• meets basic language, formatting and technical requirements;
• does not show obvious signs of plagiarism, duplicate publication or research misconduct.

A manuscript may be returned to the author for technical correction before peer review. A manuscript may also be rejected at this stage if it is clearly outside the journal scope or does not meet the minimum academic and ethical requirements of the journal.

Type of Peer Review

European Scientific e-Journal uses a double-blind peer review model. This means that reviewers do not receive identifying information about the authors, and authors do not receive identifying information about the reviewers.

The Editorial Office makes reasonable efforts to remove author-identifying information from the manuscript file before sending it to reviewers. Authors are also expected to prepare their manuscripts in a way that supports anonymous review where possible.

Review reports are confidential and are not published openly. They are used by the Editorial Board to support editorial decision-making and may be shared with the author in whole or in part when this is necessary for revision and improvement of the manuscript.

Number of Reviewers

Manuscripts are normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise.

If reviewer reports are substantially contradictory, the editor may request an additional review or make a decision based on the quality of the reports, the manuscript content and the journal’s editorial standards.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise, academic background, professional experience and relevance to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers must be able to provide an independent and objective assessment.

Reviewers should decline the review invitation if they:

• do not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript;
• cannot complete the review within a reasonable period;
• have a conflict of interest with the author, institution, research topic or submitted work;
• cannot provide an objective and confidential assessment.

The journal does not permit authors to influence the selection of reviewers in a way that compromises editorial independence.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, respectfully and confidentially. Their assessment should focus on the scholarly quality and relevance of the work.

Reviewers are asked to consider:

• relevance to the journal scope;
• originality and scholarly contribution;
• clarity of research purpose or argument;
• methodological soundness;
• quality of analysis and interpretation;
• adequacy of references;
• ethical concerns, if any;
• clarity of presentation and structure.

Reviewers must not use unpublished manuscript materials for personal research, teaching, publication or other purposes. They must not share the manuscript with third parties without permission from the Editorial Office.

Editorial Decisions

After peer review, the editor may make one of the following decisions:

• accept;
• accept after minor revision;
• request major revision and resubmission;
• reject with recommendation to submit a substantially different version in the future;
• reject.

Reviewer recommendations are carefully considered, but they do not automatically determine the final decision. The final editorial decision is based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, journal scope, publication ethics and the academic quality of the manuscript.

Revisions

If revision is requested, the author should submit a revised manuscript and, where required, a response explaining how reviewer and editorial comments have been addressed.

The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the responsible editor or returned to reviewers for further assessment. The need for additional review depends on the extent of revision and the nature of the issues raised during peer review.

Failure to submit a revised manuscript within the requested period may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from editorial consideration.

Review Timeline

The duration of peer review may vary depending on the subject area, availability of qualified reviewers, complexity of the manuscript and the extent of required revisions.

The journal aims to complete initial editorial screening within a reasonable period after submission. The first round of peer review normally takes several weeks but may take longer when additional expert evaluation is required.

The journal does not guarantee fixed review or publication dates for individual manuscripts. Publication is possible only after completion of editorial screening, peer review, revision where required, final editorial decision and technical preparation for publication.

Special Issues and Conference-based Collections

Special issues, thematic collections and conference-based collections are subject to the same general principles of editorial assessment, peer review and publication ethics as regular journal issues.

Guest editors, conference organisers or scientific committees may assist in the preparation of special collections, but final editorial responsibility remains with European Scientific e-Journal. Articles included in such collections must meet the journal’s academic standards and ethical requirements.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts except as required for editorial processing, peer review, ethical investigation or publication workflow.

Reviewer identities are kept confidential under the double-blind peer review model. Authors must not attempt to identify or contact reviewers directly regarding a manuscript under review.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that may affect the fairness or independence of manuscript evaluation.

If an editor has a conflict of interest in relation to a submitted manuscript, another qualified editor or member of the Editorial Board should handle the editorial process. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest, they must decline the review or inform the Editorial Office before accepting the assignment.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe that an editorial decision was based on a procedural error, misunderstanding or conflict of interest. Appeals must be sent to the Editorial Office and must include a clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another authorised member of the editorial team. The appeal process does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. Repeated appeals without new arguments or evidence may not be considered.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, relevance to the journal scope, peer review, ethical compliance and editorial standards. Submission fees, publication charges, institutional status, nationality, personal characteristics or commercial considerations must not influence editorial decisions.