Review Process

Scientific Times accepts articles and manuscripts from the scientific community. We accept Research articles, Editorials, Case Reports, Scientific Letters, Short Communications, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles.

Screening Protocol

A team of experts with in the journal scope will conduct the first review process of the submitted manuscripts to ensure high quality standards.

Expert Review

Every paper submitted to Scientific Times has to pass at least three reviewers that include members of the scientific committee, Editorial Board and expert reviewers within the scope of the research work.

Double-Blind review

Each paper is double-blind reviewed by at least two reviewers, and ideally is double-blind reviewed by three or more reviewers. After the paper has been reviewed, the Journal Editor in chief examines the paper and the reviewers’ comments. Then the chief makes the final decision on each paper. We encourage our reviewers to give a detailed account of their decision.

Once reviewed, every author will be able to view the reviewers’ comments as a single document. The author will learn the paper’s average scores on originality, contribution to the scientific community, use of references, presentation of ideas, language level, as well as any other comments that the reviewers have provided.

Paper Approval

Acceptance is primarily based on the relevance, originality, technical soundness, presentation, references, and scientific merit of the paper. All papers must be well written. Some papers may be rejected based on the level of language. If the paper is not clear, it cannot be reviewed. The conference chair makes the final decision on the acceptance or rejection of the paper.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process at the Journal includes the following steps:

  1. Authors submit an article
  2. The editor-in-chief verifies relevance of the article to the journal's policy for publishing such papers
  3. He chooses peer-reviewers, who are authorities in the selected fields (usually three and a biostatistician).
  4. To help decide on the merits of the paper and reach a common conclusion on the paper's suitability for publication, the editor-in-chief usually asks for an editorial board gathering to study the peer-reviewer's comments.
  5. The authors may be asked to respond to the questions raised by reviewers if the paper is accepted for publication or a rejection letter is sent if not accepted.
  6. The author/s are to respond in due time and clarify ambiguities if any.
  7. Upon receiving the resubmitted paper, the reviewers (usually two out of three and the biostatistician) check for the author/s feedbacks on their comments.
  8. Upon the last round of review (mentioned at 8), and their approval, the paper is revised by editors and it is put in the queue for publication.