Editorial Policies and Peer Review Standards

Publication Decisions

The Editors of International Journal of Applied Resilience and Sustainability (IJARS) published by Deep Science Publisher is responsible for the editorial decisions and the overall quality of the published material. However, such determinations should always rest upon validation of the work at issue and consideration of its significance to researchers and readers. Subject to applicable laws, the editor's code of ethics, and the editorial policy of the journal, the details that can be disclosed may also be limited. The editor may seek advice from other reviewers or editors in making these decisions.

Peer Review

Deep Science Publisher uses double blind anonymized review, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. Your submission will first be reviewed by the editors, and if found appropriate for this journal's scope, it will be reviewed by anonymous reviewers. If your submission is considered appropriate, a minimum of five external reviewers will usually assess the scientific quality in review. Our editors will decide if your article is accepted or rejected.

Our editors are not part of the decision-making about research papers that:

• are written by friends or professional associates;
• they have written themselves;
• correspond to products/services they are interested in.

All such submissions will be treated according to previous processes of the journal, and peer review relating to the editor in question will also be conducted independently from their own research group. Read more about editor policies.

The Editor will make sure the peer review is impartial, timely, and fair. Original research manuscript should generally be reviewed by at least five independent and external reviewers and, as a general rule, by more than the one to two external reviewers routinely selected for most other submissions.

The editor will choose reviewers according to their specialty on the topic. The editor should conduct genuine peer review and should not encourage practices that risk its failure. The editor will cover accessible conflict of interest reports and recommendations for self-citation by reviewer in all submissions to ensure that any possible bias is addressed. Authors can recommend potential reviewers. Staff from Deep Science Publisher will make certain that no conflict of interest is present and will not read submissions from any author if such conflicts arise. At the time of submitting an article, authors can also provide a list of appropriate peer reviewers they would prefer (or not prefer) to review their article. The Editors will honor such requests provided that there is no risk of bias concerning the impartial review of the article. From submission to acceptance of the work, a single editor manages the peer-review process and communicates with authors and reviewers.

Reviewers should meet following criteria:

• They should have an accepted and official academic connection.
• They should have experience and a proven record of publishing papers in the field covered by the submitted manuscript (Scopus/ORCID).
• They should hold a PhD or MD.
• They should not have published an article together with the authors within the previous 3 years.
• They ought not to belong to the authors' institution.
• They should not present any conflict of interest with any authors.

Once reviewers are selected to review a manuscript, they should meet the following requirements:

• They must insist on maintaining professional and ethical standards.
• They must ensure the quality of review reports and maintain a responsive process for peer review.
• Once a reviewer has agreed to write the review, they have a 14–20 days’ timeframe from the date the invitation is sent to complete their written submission. The review is submitted online and aligned with our Deep Science platform. Extensions are available upon request.
• They must be able to evaluate the quality of manuscripts.
• For revised manuscripts, comments and final reports are requested within three days. Requests for extensions may also be accommodated.

Revision

If the manuscript has been recommended for minor or major revisions, the Deep Science Publisher editor will invite you to revise your paper. If necessary, the Academic Editors may recommend additional reviewers or further review reports. Revised manuscripts may or may not be sent to the reviewers, depending on whether they requested to see the revised version. Initially, reviewers who recommended major revision or rejection will automatically receive the revised manuscript.

A maximum of two major-revision rounds per submission is offered as a rule. If reviewers believe additional rounds are necessary, Deep Science Publisher may consult the Editor and will advise the author(s). For manuscripts requiring significant revision, for which the paper status is “Reject,” authors may choose to resubmit within their own timeframe after a complete overhaul to the same journal.

Fair Play

The editor should consider manuscripts solely on the basis of their intellectual content, without reference to the ethnic origin, religious beliefs, citizenship, political philosophy, sexual orientation, gender, or race of the authors. The journal’s editorial policy should promote fairness and transparency in peer review, and the editor must make clear what is expected from both reviewers and authors. The editor will manage all communications through online submission system. Additionally, the editor will collaborate with the publisher to design a clear and accessible procedure for authors to appeal editorial decisions.

Citations and Journal Metrics

The editor should not use any journal metric to influence decisions on manuscript acceptance. Specifically, the editor will not encourage citation of that (or any other) journal's articles with respect to acceptance or rejection of a submission for publication in the journal. The author should not be asked to make such citations, and even more serious would be insistence that an editor's or reviewer's work or product particularly when the editor has investment purposes or is affiliated with some investment group in which case he or she must recuse himself or herself from the review process. Suggestive inappropriate citations in reviewers' comments may be stripped by editors before forwarding the reviewers' comments to the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor will keep confidential all manuscripts submitted to the journal as well as all communication with reviewers, except where disclosure has been explicitly authorized by both the author and the reviewer concerned. In cases where, despite the editor's efforts, a potential ethical breach comes to light after publication, the journal will document the issue and notify the other party that an investigation has been initiated. Material submitted for publication but not yet accepted should not be used in an editor's work without the written consent of the author. Confidential ideas or information obtained through peer review must be kept as such and not used for personal gain.

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Any possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed in writing to the publisher at the time of appointment and updated if new conflicts are identified. Such statements may be published in the journal. Editors must recuse themselves from making decisions on manuscripts they have authored, those authored by close family members, or those connected to products or services in which they hold a personal or financial interest. Moreover, any such submission must be subject to the regular journal processes. Peer review should be undertaken independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups, and a clear statement indicating this fact should appear on any paper that is published.

Maintaining Integrity of the Published Record

The editor’s role is to maintain fairness and balance in the publication process, ensuring that differing viewpoints are given due consideration and not unfairly excluded. They are also responsible for protecting the integrity of the research record by addressing any indications of misconduct, whether related to research practices, authorship, peer review, editorial decisions, or publication ethics in coordination with the publisher. In handling such concerns, the editor may reach out directly to the author involved, seek advice from additional experts or parties, and carefully evaluate the details of the complaint or issue. Depending on the seriousness of the case, this could also involve communicating with relevant institutions, academic bodies, or research organizations to ensure an appropriate and transparent resolution. Additionally, the editor will utilise the publisher’s systems to assist in preventing the publication of papers where such concerns exist. When credible evidence of misconduct arises, the editor should work closely with the publisher to ensure that a timely notice such as a retraction, correction, expression of concern, or another appropriate statement is issued. The editor needs to stay current with relevant policies and procedures designed to protect the integrity of published literature, which include not only those that are relevant to the role of the editorial team but also those that apply more broadly (for example, training for reviewers and editors).

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers and Editors

Deep Science Publisher, with regards to potential unethical behaviour of the author, reviewer, or editor, follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s procedures. All Deep Science editors undergo training in ethical issues and how to respond. Information on ethics and paper submission is described in the Author guidelines of a journal.

Reader comments that raise ethical concerns will be referred to the editors of the journal in question, who will follow COPE's recommended procedures. Any disagreements concerning the validity of research reported in published articles will be resolved by the Editorial Board. For such author disputes, data disputes, misconduct by authors, and the like, we refer to external bodies as appropriate (e.g., seeing if a university ethics committee can investigate). Authors are requested to respond to allegations with evidence. On the treatment of some issues related to authorship disputes, we follow COPE recommendations. Normally, if all authors approve, the authorship can be modified using a Correction. If not, we would need an official statement from the author institution to confirm who is acceptable for authorship. Together with the Editorial Office, all those involved in the peer review process (including Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board, and reviewers) will act to support Fair Open Access of Deep Science. If a reviewer or Editorial Board member of the journal suspects (or becomes aware of) an ethical problem with a manuscript submitted for review, or suspects they have been “scooped” (received information from the submitting author about their work which the reviewer wants to use as part of their own work) post-publication, they are asked to contact the Editorial Office immediately. The Editorial Office will investigate as per COPE guidelines. To ensure submissions comply with our guidelines, a number of checks are carried out pre- and during peer review by Managing Editors (and Assistant Editors) in the Editorial Office. However, any concerns from Reviewers and Editors should still be directed to the Editorial Office.

Editorial and Compliance Checks

• Registration of trials, and mention of the registration in Methodology.
• Duplicate publication, plagiarism, and permission from copyright holders to reproduce any previously published figures or images are checked.
• Verification of ethics approval and consent to participate for studies involving human participants, including data collection through interviews.
• Any other applicable compliance, ethics, and research integrity checks as per Deep Science Publisher policies and instructions.

Decision Considerations

In recommending or making a decision to accept the manuscript for publication, reviewers and editors should take account of:

• Adequate comments on the submission from appropriate reviewers.
• The submission being within the scope of the journal.
• All data and analysis methods in articles should be described clearly enough so that someone else would be able to reproduce the experiments.
• It is the authors' responsibility to properly present their findings and provide an unbiased discussion of their impact in context.
• Any information perceived as a conflict of interest, which should be considered personal and disclosed as such before publication.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

All personal information about a submitted manuscript and its review process must be kept confidential between editors, authors, and reviewers. Reviewers and editors are required to keep the abstract, as well as the complete content of the whole manuscript, confidential. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they want a student or colleague to undertake the review on their behalf. Deep Science Publisher’s double-blind peer review. Reviewers should take care not to reveal their identity to authors, whether in their comments or through the metadata contained in submitted Word or PDF reports.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

We believe in transparency, and that peer reviewers have a responsibility to disclose and work with the editorial team to reconcile potential conflicts of interest when engaging in review, decision-making, and publicising an article. All relationships that could be perceived to have influenced, or give the appearance of potentially influencing, what is written in this paper (e.g., professional associations, consultancies, stock ownerships) are disclosed. Even when a reviewer or editor is confident that the existence of a conflict of interest (or multiple conflicts) will not influence peer review or decision-making, they should recuse themselves from the process to prevent any perceived conflict of interest and protect the credibility of peer review.