Peer Review Policies
Manuscript Evaluation
- All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Editor to ensure compliance with WeAvecU’s Author Guidelines and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
- Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage for the following reasons:
- The research is outside the journal’s scope or
- The article lacks scientific rigor or is overly
- The manuscript is poorly presented, with unclear methods or
- The language is inadequate or the content is highly
Peer Review Process
• Manuscripts that meet the initial criteria are forwarded to at least two independent subject experts for evaluation.
• WeAvecU journals employ a double-blind peer review system: both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the process.
• Peer reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, institutional profile, and absence of conflicts of interest. Diversity in reviewer backgrounds and geographic locations is prioritized.
• Reviewers are matched to manuscripts according to their specialization, and the reviewer database is regularly updated.
Peer Review Reports
- Reviewers provide detailed, objective, and constructive feedback, either within the manuscript or as a separate report, and complete a reviewer form indicating their overall recommendation (accept, revise, or reject).
- Language correction is not a formal part of the peer review, but reviewers may suggest improvements if they wish.
- Reviewer comments typically address:
- Novelty and significance of the research
- Clarity and accuracy of the abstract
- Relevance and clarity of the research question
- Adequacy of methods and analysis
- Justification of interpretations and conclusions
- Appropriateness and completeness of references
- Quality of language and presentation Timelines and Process Management
- The duration of the review process depends on reviewer availability and response
- If reviewer reports are contradictory or delayed, an additional expert may be
- Reviewer reports, including verbatim comments, are shared with the author for Author Response
- Authors should address all reviewer comments thoroughly and
- For each comment, authors should indicate changes made or provide a rationale if changes are not
Final Decision
- The Editor communicates the final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) to the author, along with recommendations and reviewer feedback.
- Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit and relevance, independent of any commercial or financial interests.
Confidentiality and Ethics
- All manuscripts and reviews are treated as
- Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline assignments if unqualified or unable to review
- The integrity and anonymity of the review process are strictly maintained