Peer Review Policy
Principles governing independent, constructive, confidential, and fair peer review across SKLS journals.
Purpose of Peer Review
Peer review supports editorial assessment by providing independent expert evaluation of a manuscript's scientific quality, methodology, interpretation, originality, reporting, relevance, and ethical considerations.
Peer-Review Model
The peer-review model may vary by journal or article type. Each journal should state clearly whether it uses single-blind, double-blind, open, or another peer-review model.
Where reviewer identities are confidential, SKLS does not disclose those identities to authors unless disclosure is permitted by the applicable journal policy and the reviewer.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant subject expertise, methodological knowledge, publication or research experience, absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest, and their ability to provide a fair and timely assessment.
Editors may consider author-suggested reviewers but are not required to invite them. Editors may also decline suggested reviewers where independence cannot be assured.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Provide objective, constructive, evidence-informed, and respectful comments.
- Review only manuscripts for which they have appropriate expertise.
- Declare conflicts of interest promptly.
- Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials.
- Do not use unpublished information for personal, academic, financial, or competitive advantage.
- Alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data concerns, image concerns, ethical problems, or other integrity issues.
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the manuscript, review, data, figures, or associated correspondence with unauthorized persons.
Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content to external artificial-intelligence or other third-party systems where confidentiality, data retention, or reuse cannot be appropriately controlled.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should decline an invitation where financial, personal, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or other relationships could reasonably compromise impartiality or create the appearance of inappropriate influence.
Editorial Decisions
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the editorial decision. The responsible editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, journal scope, research integrity, methodological quality, and applicable policies before reaching a decision.
Timeliness
SKLS aims to conduct peer review efficiently while preserving review quality. Review timelines may vary according to the subject area, reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revisions required, and journal workflow. Any journal-specific decision-time target should be described on that journal's information page.
Suspected Misconduct During Review
Concerns identified during peer review may be referred for additional editorial assessment. Where appropriate, editors may request supporting data, ethics documentation, original images, clarification, or other materials before a decision is made.