Editorial Process

Hilltopub implements a rigorous peer review process to ensure quality, which is conducted by external researchers and academic editors exclusively to maintain transparency, rigor, and fairness for all involved parties.

For most of our journals, peer review follows a single-blind assessment with a minimum of two independent reviewers. The final decision of acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another academic editor designated by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the academic integrity of the publication process and appoints new Editorial Board members.

A brief overview of the editorial process is provided in the flowchart below.

Pre-Check

The pre-screening stage involves two main steps: a technical pre-check conducted by the Editorial Office and an editorial pre-check carried out by an academic editor. Upon receiving a submission, the journal’s Managing Editor assesses:

1. The manuscript's suitability for the journal/section/Special Issue (Topic/Topical Collection).
2. Adherence of the manuscript to high-quality research and ethical standards.
3. Potential conflicts of interest.
4. Rigorous standards necessary for further review.

The academic editor (e.g., Editor-in-Chief for regular submissions, Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions, Topic Editor for Topic submissions, Collection Editor for Topical Collection submissions, or an Editorial Board member for conflicted submissions if permitted by the Editor-in-Chief) is informed of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. During this phase, the academic editor evaluates the submission's alignment with the journal's scope and its scientific validity, including the relevance of references and the correctness of methodology. The academic editors may reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer review, or proceed with peer review and recommend suitable reviewers.

Guest Editors, Topic Editors, and Collection Editors cannot make decisions regarding their own submissions to their respective Special Issue/Topics/Topical Collection due to potential conflicts of interest. Instead, an Editorial Board member handles decision-making. Editors can only participate in the review process as authors.

 

Peer Review and Processes

Throughout the submission-to-decision or publication process, a dedicated journal staff member coordinates the review process and serves as the primary contact for authors, academic editors, and reviewers.

Most journals operate single-blind peer review, where authors are unaware of the reviewer's identity, but the reviewer knows the author's identity. Some journals use double-blind peer review, where both author and reviewer identities are concealed. Conference journals follow different peer review standards set by the conference committee.

At least two review reports are obtained for each submitted article. Academic editors may suggest reviewers during pre-check, or editorial staff may select from qualified Editorial Board members, reviewers in the database, or new reviewers identified through web searches.

Authors can recommend potential reviewers, but please ensures no conflicts of interest and honors requests to exclude certain reviewers, provided they don't compromise the thorough assessment of the submission.

Reviewers must meet specific criteria:
- No conflicts of interest with any authors.
- Not from the same institution as the authors.
- Not co-published with the authors in the last three years.
- Hold a PhD or MD (for medical journals).
- Relevant experience and proven publication record in the field.
- Experienced scholars in the field.
- Hold an official academic affiliation.

Accepted reviewers are expected to:
- Possess the expertise to assess manuscript quality.
- Provide high-quality review reports and remain responsive.
- Uphold professionalism and ethics standards.

Reviewers have 7–10 days to submit their review via the online platform, with extensions available upon request. Reviewers evaluating revised manuscripts are asked to provide their report within three days, with extensions also granted upon request.

Hilltopub staff handles all communication with reviewers, authors, and external editors, allowing academic editors to monitor manuscript status and reviewer identities and discuss manuscript review progress with Hilltopub staff at any stage.