Editor Guidelines

Editor Guidelines

Scholar Cave upholds a rigorous and transparent peer review process to maintain the highest standards of scholarly publishing. Our collaborative review model fosters constructive dialogue between authors, reviewers, and editors, ensuring that published research meets the highest academic and ethical standards.

Scholar Cave Peer Review Model

Scholar Cave employs a double-anonymized review process, where reviewers are aware of the authors' identities. This allows reviewers to assess research within its proper academic context while preventing conflicts of interest. To maintain transparency and accountability, Scholar Cave acknowledges the contributions of endorsing reviewers upon article publication.

Collaborative Peer Review Process

Our peer review platform encourages interactive engagement between authors, reviewers, and handling editors. This approach ensures that manuscripts receive comprehensive feedback, leading to high-quality publications.

Independent Review Phase

  • Upon accepting an invitation to review, reviewers gain access to the manuscript and supporting materials via our online review forum.
  • Reviewers independently assess the manuscript and complete a structured review questionnaire tailored to the article type (e.g., research articles, review articles, short communications letters to the editor, etc.).
  • Reviewers submit their evaluation along with a recommendation to the handling editor.
  • If all reviewers submit their reports, the handling editor initiates the interactive review phase, allowing authors to respond to feedback.

Interactive Review Phase

  • Authors receive reviewer feedback and can respond directly via the review forum.
  • Reviewers are notified when authors submit revisions and can engage in further discussions.
  • Reviewers may endorse the manuscript for publication if they find the necessary revisions satisfactory. If concerns persist, they may recommend further revision or rejection.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of scholarly publishing. Their expertise ensures that research is presented in the best possible manner. Below are key considerations when reviewing a manuscript:

Before Accepting a Review Invitation:

  • Assess Expertise: Ensure the manuscript aligns with your area of expertise. If not, decline and suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Consider Availability: Reviews should be completed within seven days of acceptance. If this timeframe is unfeasible, inform the editorial office promptly.
  • Check for Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest regarding the manuscript’s authors or subject matter.

During Peer Review:

  • Maintain Objectivity: Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript, not the author. Personal biases should be set aside.
  • Focus on Scientific Quality: Evaluate the research design, methodology, data analysis, and conclusions for accuracy and rigor.
  • Provide Constructive Feedback: Offer clear, detailed, and polite suggestions for improvement.
  • Respect the Manuscript’s Scope: Avoid suggesting changes that significantly expand or shift the study’s focus.
  • Consider Field-Specific Elements: Apply expertise to assess discipline-specific methodologies or theoretical frameworks.

What to Avoid:

  • Vague or Superficial Reports: Detailed feedback leads to a smoother review process and better manuscript revisions.
  • Omitting Key Issues in Initial Reports: Provide all critical feedback in the first review to avoid unnecessary delays.
  • Unjustified Delays: Reviewers should aim to meet deadlines or request extensions if needed.

After Peer Review:

  • Reviewer Recognition: Endorsing reviewers will be acknowledged on the final publication.
  • Confidentiality: Review reports should not be shared publicly. However, reviewers will receive a confirmation email for institutional or professional recognition.

Maintaining Communication

Reviewers encountering issues or requiring assistance should contact the journal’s editorial office. Scholar Cave is committed to supporting reviewers throughout the peer review process, ensuring an efficient and fair review experience for all participants.