Reviewing Policy

Peer-Review Model

SRTM employs a single-blind peer-review process, meaning the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors, but the reviewers are aware of the authors' identities.

Review Process Steps

1. Initial Editorial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor checks for scope, guideline adherence, and basic quality. Unsuitable manuscripts may be desk-rejected.
2. Invitation to Reviewers: Each submission is sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers for evaluation based on expertise, publication history, and absence of conflicts of interest (Guidelines for Reviewers > V. Declaring a Conflict of Interest).
3. Review Timeframe: Reviewers typically have 2–3 weeks to complete their assessment. Extensions may be granted.
4. Reviewer Recommendations: Reviewers submit a report with one of the following decisions:
   • Accept without revision
   • Accept after minor revisions
   • Major revision required (second review round mandatory)
   • Reject
5. Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief reviews all reports and communicates the final decision to the corresponding author, along with anonymized reviewer comments.

Confidentiality and Integrity

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential. They may not share, discuss, or use manuscript content for personal or third-party advantage. Any potential conflicts of interest must be declared, and reviewers must recuse themselves if necessary.

For any questions regarding this policy, please contact the editorial office.