Manuscript quality standards

Our research integrity team ensures that manuscripts adhere to high-quality research and ethical standards and prevents the publication of manuscripts below our quality standards. At any stage before official publication, if a manuscript does not meet our editorial criteria and standards for publication, or if peer-review or research integrity concerns are raised by any review participant or reader (abstracts are published online ahead of official publication), the journal's editor in chief will investigate these concerns, regardless of peer review or acceptance stage.

Paragraphs Media Publishing applies the following criteria for acceptance and rejection of manuscripts. See further information on our editorial and ethical policies , as well as in our author guidelines, Paragraphs Media Publishing publication policies , and terms and conditions.

Peer Review Process

The following is the editorial workflow that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process. The entire editorial workflow for our journals is performed via our submission system operate with MPDI platform. Once a manuscript draft is submitted for publication, the manuscript is checked by the journal editorial office to ensure the files are complete and that the relevant metadata is in order. The Editor in Chief has the absolute decision responsible for the aims, scope, different recommendations of the reviewer and will be called upon to handle appeals, other editorial issues as and when required.

Steps of the peer-review process;

1. Manuscript Submission

   The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript to the journal. This is usually via our online submission system adopted from MDPI platform.




2. Initial Screening

   The editorial manager/editor member journal checks the manuscript scope, composition, and arrangement against the journalfs Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the manuscript is not evaluated at this step.



3. Editor in Chief Assessment

   The Editor in Chief checks that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the manuscript may be rejected without being reviewed any further. Then, the Editor in Chief assigns the manuscript to the editor in charge who handles the peer review, at the same time invites commonly this is 2 potential individuals he or she believes would be appropriate to provide a peer review report.



4. Invitation

   The editor in charge sends an inquiry about invitations and responds to further communication with reviewers.



5. Review Feedback

   The reviewers set time aside to read the manuscript several times. They will read the manuscript several more times, write notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. After finishing, the reviewers submitted peer review recommendation reports.



6. The Decision

   The editor in charge considers all the returned recommendations before making one of the following decisions;
Accept
Minor revisions
Major revisions
Reject and resubmit
Reject

The editor will send a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments and revisions deadline.



7. Final

   The Editor in Chief will send the agreement proofreading of the final manuscript and APC invoice. After Editor in Chief received both documents, the manuscript will be processed for publishing.