Manuscripts submitted to Discover STM Publishing Ltd journals undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine whether they are suitable for consideration by the journal. This assessment may consider the journal’s aims and scope, manuscript type, basic methodological and ethical requirements, originality, presentation and compliance with journal policies. A manuscript may be declined without external peer review if it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet essential submission requirements, contains fundamental methodological or ethical problems, or is otherwise unsuitable for further consideration.
Manuscripts suitable for external review are handled according to the journal’s published peer-review policy. Journals published or hosted by Discover STM Publishing Ltd use a double-blind process: reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and authors’ identities are withheld from reviewers as required by the journal’s process. Manuscripts proceeding to external review are sent to a minimum of two independent experts in the relevant field, selected for appropriate expertise and independence. The extent and form of review may depend on the article type and the individual journal’s published policy.
Reviewers should assess manuscripts objectively and constructively, evaluating scientific or clinical merit, methodology, interpretation and reporting as appropriate to the article type. They should identify important strengths, limitations and concerns, give clear reasons for their recommendations, and alert the editor to potential research-integrity concerns they identify. Reviewers must treat the manuscript and review process as confidential and must not use unpublished information for personal advantage.
Submitted manuscripts, review reports and correspondence between authors, reviewers and editors are confidential. Reviewers must not distribute manuscript material. A reviewer wishing to seek advice from a colleague must first obtain the editor’s approval. Reviewer identities will not normally be disclosed; confidential information may be disclosed where required by law or another overriding legal obligation.
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, manuscript data, images or other unpublished submission material to publicly accessible generative-AI systems or services where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers remain fully responsible for their reports and professional judgement. AI tools must not replace independent reviewer assessment. Further requirements are set out in the publisher’s Ethical Policies.
Reviewers must disclose relevant financial, professional, personal or other competing interests and should decline an invitation where a conflict could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartiality. Editors must also disclose relevant interests and recuse themselves from handling a manuscript where appropriate. The publisher’s Ethical Policies provide further guidance.
Reviewers provide assessments and recommendations to the editor. Recommendations may include acceptance, revision or rejection according to the individual journal’s decision categories, but they are advisory. The responsible editor considers the reports, independently assesses the manuscript, and makes the final editorial decision on scholarly and editorial merit and journal policy. Where reports materially conflict, the editor may weigh the arguments, seek clarification or obtain additional expert review.
Revised manuscripts are assessed by the editor and may, where appropriate, be returned to the original reviewers or sent for additional review before a final decision. Any material deviation from the journal’s published peer-review process should have a legitimate editorial reason and be appropriately documented. An editorial decision may be reconsidered if a material error, previously unavailable information, a substantive appeal, an ethical or research-integrity concern, or another exceptional circumstance warrants it.
Editors are responsible for decisions based on scholarly merit, relevance, integrity and suitability for the journal. Editorial decisions must be independent of commercial considerations, including advertising relationships and whether an author may be liable for an Article Processing Charge.
If reviewers or editors identify concerns about plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image or data manipulation, unethical research, authorship or other potential misconduct, the matter should be assessed under the publisher’s Ethical Policies and relevant COPE guidance. A concern does not automatically determine the editorial outcome before assessment.
Each journal published or hosted by Discover STM Publishing Ltd should make its submission requirements and reviewer guidance readily accessible on its website and keep them appropriately updated. Individual journals may provide additional details about editorial assessment, peer-review procedures, revision and decision-making. Authors and reviewers should consult the relevant journal’s published policies and guidance through the journals directory.
