Every manuscript submitted to a WeAvecU journal follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent editorial workflow to ensure the publication of high-quality, original research.

1. Initial Manuscript Evaluation
   • Editorial Screening: Upon submission, the manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial office to ensure it adheres to WeAvecU’s author guidelines and falls within the journal’s aims and scope.
   • Desk Rejection Criteria: Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if:
     • The research is outside the journal’s scope.
     • The article lacks scientific rigor or is overly general.
     • The manuscript is poorly presented, with unclear methods or findings.
     • The language is of poor quality.
     • The content contains significant plagiarism.
2. Assignment to Handling Editor
   • Once the manuscript passes the initial check, it is assigned to an appropriate handling editor based on subject expertise and editor availability.
   • Editors with any potential conflict of interest with the manuscript or its authors are not assigned to handle the manuscript.
3. Peer Review Process
   • Double-Blind Review: WeAvecU journals use a double-anonymous peer review process. Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
   • Reviewer Selection: The handling editor assigns the manuscript to at least two independent peer reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.
   • Reviewer Recommendations: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend one of the following actions:
     • Publish unaltered
     • Consider after minor changes
     • Consider after major changes
     • Reject (manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel)
4. Editorial Decision
   • Once all reviewer reports are received, the handling editor makes an editorial recommendation, which may be:
     • Publish unaltered
     • Consider after minor changes
     • Consider after major changes
     • Reject
   • If the editor recommends “publish unaltered,” the manuscript undergoes a final check by the editorial office to ensure compliance with all journal policies and guidelines.
   • If minor or major changes are required, the authors are notified and asked to revise their manuscript accordingly.
5. Revision and Further Review
   • Minor Changes: Authors submit a revised manuscript addressing reviewer comments. The handling editor reviews the changes and, if satisfied, may accept the manuscript.
   • Major Changes: Authors submit a revised manuscript, which is typically sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Reviewers provide updated recommendations, and the editor makes a final decision based on these reports.
6. Final Decision and Notification
   • Acceptance: Once all requirements are met, the authors are notified of acceptance.
   • Rejection: If the manuscript is rejected at any stage, the authors are promptly informed, and the decision is final.
   • Authority: Editors have the authority to reject any manuscript due to subject inappropriateness, lack of quality, or incorrectness of results. Editors may not serve as external reviewers for manuscripts they handle.
7. Manuscript Tracking and Transparency
   • The entire editorial workflow is managed through WeAvecU’s secure online manuscript tracking system, ensuring transparency and timely communication with authors and reviewers.