Peer Review Policy

SAER Journal applies independent peer review to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance of manuscripts submitted for publication. The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of impartiality, confidentiality, research integrity, and editorial independence.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are initially assessed by the editor or a designated section editor with regard to the journal’s aims and scope, academic quality, formal requirements, ethical considerations, and basic publication standards. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of the journal, fail to meet essential scientific or ethical requirements, or are considered unsuitable for external review may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Peer Review Model

SAER Journal primarily applies a double-anonymous peer review model for research and review articles. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another.

Manuscripts selected for peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Additional reviewer opinions may be requested when considered necessary by the editor.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise and competence in relation to the subject matter, methodology, and disciplinary scope of the manuscript. Editors seek to avoid actual or potential conflicts of interest that may compromise the independence of the review process.

Reviewers are expected to disclose any financial, institutional, academic, personal, or other relationships or activities that may influence their evaluation and, where appropriate, to decline the review invitation.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts particularly with regard to:

Originality and scientific contribution,
Clarity of the research question or objective,
Adequacy of the theoretical and conceptual framework,
Suitability and methodological rigor of the research design,
Accuracy and clarity in the presentation of findings,
Consistency of the discussion and conclusions with the findings,
Adequacy and currency of the references,
Compliance with research ethics and research integrity standards.

5. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers provide the editor with their evaluations, comments, and recommendations regarding the manuscript. Reviewer reports constitute an important source of scientific advice in the editorial process; however, reviewer recommendations are not binding on the editor.

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the editor after considering reviewer reports, editorial assessment, the journal’s aims and scope, scientific quality, and publication ethics.

6. Divergent Reviewer Opinions

Where substantial disagreement exists between reviewer reports, the editor may seek the opinion of a third or additional reviewer. Obtaining an additional review does not alter the editor’s ultimate responsibility for the final editorial decision.

7. Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors are expected to provide a clear and systematic response to reviewer and editor comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the same or different reviewers, or the editor may assess whether the revisions adequately address the issues raised.

8. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and peer review reports are treated as confidential scholarly communications. Editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in the publication process must not disclose manuscript content to unauthorized persons before publication or use information obtained through the review process for personal, professional, or academic advantage.

Reviewers are expected not to upload unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, or other confidential materials to artificial intelligence systems or third-party digital tools where confidentiality cannot be assured. Any use of AI-assisted tools in peer review must comply with the journal’s confidentiality and data protection requirements.

9. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Where an editor, editorial board member, or another individual involved in editorial decision-making is an author of a submitted manuscript, that individual is excluded from the review and decision process. The manuscript is handled by an independent editor and evaluated by independent reviewers.

10. Ethical Concerns

If concerns arise during peer review regarding plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, ethical approval, inappropriate authorship, or other forms of research misconduct, the editor may initiate further review and apply the journal’s relevant publication ethics procedures.

11. General Principles

SAER Journal conducts peer review in accordance with internationally recognized principles of transparency, confidentiality, impartiality, and research integrity. The journal may periodically review and update its peer review procedures in response to developments in international publication ethics and editorial standards.