Peer Review Policy

The Life Sciences and Environmental Research Journal (LSERJ) adheres to a robust and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of the research we publish. Our Peer Review Policy outlines the procedures followed to review submitted manuscripts, the responsibilities of reviewers, and the journal’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards in academic publishing.

Peer Review Process:

LSERJ uses a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This helps to eliminate bias and ensure that decisions about the manuscript are made based solely on its scientific merit and relevance.

• Initial Screening: Upon submission, the manuscript is initially screened by the editorial team for compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines. This includes checking the manuscript for originality, adherence to ethical standards, and relevance to the journal’s scope. If the manuscript meets these criteria, it is then sent out for peer review.

• Selection of Reviewers: The editorial team selects appropriate reviewers with expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are typically experts in the field who are invited to evaluate the manuscript for its scientific quality, clarity, methodology, and overall contribution to the discipline.

• Review Timeline: The review process typically takes between 4 to 6 weeks, though this may vary depending on the availability of reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript. The editorial office works closely with reviewers to ensure timely responses. If reviewers require more time, the editorial office will inform the authors of the delay.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

Reviewers are integral to the success of the peer review process, and their role is essential in maintaining the journal’s credibility. Reviewers are expected to:

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document and must not share its contents with others or use the knowledge gained during the review process for personal advantage.

• Impartiality: Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and without bias. They should assess the manuscript based on scientific merit, methodology, and clarity rather than the identity of the author(s) or their institutional affiliations.

• Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscript. Comments should be respectful and professional, offering suggestions for improvement, whether in terms of methodology, data presentation, or overall structure.

• Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the agreed-upon timeframe. If they are unable to meet this deadline, they should notify the editorial office as soon as possible so that alternative reviewers can be selected.

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest, they should recuse themselves from the review process.

Editorial Responsibilities:

The editorial team at LSERJ is responsible for overseeing the peer review process and making final decisions on whether to accept or reject a manuscript. Editors are expected to:

• Fairness and Transparency: Editors must handle manuscripts in an unbiased, fair, and transparent manner. Decisions should be based solely on the quality, relevance, and originality of the research, without regard to the identity of the author(s).

• Handling Ethical Issues: If an ethical issue is raised during the review process, such as concerns about plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical violations, the editorial team will investigate the matter thoroughly and follow the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

• Confidentiality: Editors must ensure that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Manuscripts should not be disclosed to others unless they are involved in the peer review or editorial decision-making process.

• Final Decision: After receiving feedback from reviewers, the editor will make a decision about the manuscript. This could result in acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection. Authors will be notified promptly of the decision, along with the feedback provided by the reviewers.

Types of Peer Review Decisions:

1. Accept as is: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication with no revisions required.
2. Minor revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted for publication.
3. Major revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions or reworking before it can be reconsidered for publication.
4. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope and is not suitable for publication.

Transparency and Integrity:

LSERJ is committed to transparency in the peer review process. To this end, we provide authors with detailed feedback from reviewers and offer an opportunity for authors to revise and resubmit their work in response to reviewers' comments. We also encourage authors to disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the review.

LSERJ adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for handling ethical issues in peer review and publication, ensuring that the entire process maintains the highest standards of academic integrity.

Open Peer Review Option: In line with our commitment to open science and transparency, LSERJ offers authors the option to choose open peer review, where the identities of the reviewers are revealed to the authors upon publication. Authors can opt for this feature during the submission process.

By adhering to this Peer Review Policy, LSERJ ensures that all published research meets the highest academic standards, is of significant value to the scientific community, and contributes to the ongoing dialogue in life sciences and environmental research.