Scilight Press

1. Overview

In most Scilight Press journals, the process is single-anonymous peer-review (the reviewers know the authors' identities, but the authors do not know the reviewers' identities). Some journals operate double-anonymous peer-review (the reviewers do not know the authors' identities until the paper have been published). All research articles, reviews, and most other article types, published in Scilight Press journals undergo peer review. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers, to ensure high-quality, impactful publications that are both academically rigorous and policy-relevant. All manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism using the Publish with confidence | iThenticate to detect instances of overlapping and similar text by the in-house editor.

All submissions to Scilight Press journals are first reviewed for completeness, and only then sent to be assessed by an Academic Editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board authorized by the Editor-in-Chief), who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where the Academic Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee the peer review. The Academic Editor will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, including both the initial decision and the final decision, but is not bound by the opinions or recommendations contained therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Academic Editor may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

2. Reviewer Selection and Review Standards

The quality of a journal depends heavily on choosing appropriate reviewers. In identifying candidates, editors may consider disciplinary expertise, scholarly reputation, suggestions from trusted sources, prior reviewing experience, and any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Reviews are most useful when they are timely, careful, well-reasoned, and professional in tone.

• Number of reviews. For manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, Academic Editors should obtain at least two independent peer reviews.
• Diversity of the reviewer pool. Academic Editors are encouraged to consider geographic location, gender, race/ethnicity, and other relevant forms of diversity when issuing review invitations.
• Author-suggested reviewers. Authors may be asked to propose possible reviewers at submission. Editors are not obliged to invite these individuals. Such suggestions may, however, help the journal identify qualified reviewers more quickly.
• Content and use of review reports. Review reports should be written in English and should provide constructive critical evaluation. They should address the suitability of the methods, the accuracy or credibility of the results, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on substantive reviewer comments that meet these standards, not on brief or superficial reports that offer a recommendation without reasons.
• Non-research submissions. Manuscripts that are not primary research or secondary analysis of primary research—such as editorials, book reviews, or letters to the editor—may be accepted without external peer review. They should still be assessed by the Academic Editor(s) or by at least one independent expert.
• Conflicts of interest. Invited reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflict of interest before accepting an invitation. Reviewers should decline if they believe a competing interest exists because of competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any author, company, or institution connected to the paper.
• Confidentiality. Communications between Editors and reviewers are confidential and should not be shared with third parties.

3. General Guidelines for Reviewers

3.1 Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to Scilight Press journals are reviewed by at least two experts, who may be recommended reviewers by authors, or suggested by the Academic Editor during the preliminary check. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and make recommendations to Academic Editors as to whether the manuscript should be accepted, requires revision (major or minor revisions needed), or should be rejected.

We ask invited reviewers to:

• accept or decline any invitation as soon as possible (according to the manuscript title and abstract).
• recommend alternative reviewers, if an invitation must be declined.
• apply for an extension as soon as possible if more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.

3.2 Potential Conflicts of Interest

If a reviewer is unsure whether something constitutes a potential conflict of interest, we ask the reviewer to declare any potential conflict of interest and email it to the journal Editorial Office as soon as possible. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

• Reviewer works in the same institute as one of the authors.
• Reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, co-founder, or has any other academic ties to any of the authors within the past three years.
• Reviewer has a close personal relationship with, rivalry with, or aversion to any of the authors.
• Reviewer may gain or lose financially from the publication of the paper in any way.
• Reviewer has any other non-financial conflict of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial, or any other) with any of the authors.
• Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be seen as supporting or opposing the paper or the authors.

Note that if reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts they previously reviewed for other journals, this is not considered to be a conflict of interest. In this case, reviewers are encouraged to let the Editorial Office know whether the manuscript has been improved or not compared to previous versions.

3.3 Peer Review Manipulation

Manipulation of a peer review process is using dishonest or fraudulent practices to prevent or inappropriately influence the independent assessment of a piece of scholarly work by an independent peer, with the goal of influencing the publication record and/or achieving financial gain. 

In cases where there is a suspicion or allegation of peer review manipulation, we will follow COPE flowcharts on peer review.

3.4 Benefits for reviewers

• For each manuscript they review, reviewers can apply for a Certificate of Reviewing on request.
• Reviewers with a solid academic track record may apply for Membership in the Editorial Board upon completion of several reviews.

3.5 Privacy and Confidentiality

In Scilight Press journals, manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors' confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Accordingly, editors and reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share their contents with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

Since peer review is confidential, reviewers must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors. Information concerning the manuscript (including the content of the manuscript, the status of the review process, peer review comments, and editorial decisions, etc.) must not be disclosed by the editor to anyone other than the author and reviewers. Reviewers should also take care not to reveal their identities to authors, whether in their comments or in the metadata of reports submitted in Microsoft Word, PDF, or Latex format.

Reviewers and editors must respect the rights of authors and must not publicly discuss the authors' work or misappropriate their ideas before the manuscript is published. Without the permission of the editor, reviewers are prohibited from making copies of the manuscript or sharing it with others.

This prohibition extends to AI tools. Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or any part thereof into public or open AI models. If using AI-assisted tools to support the review process, reviewers may only use private AI tools that do not retain or re-use uploaded data, and must clearly disclose such use to the editor.

For more details, please refer to Editorial Policies - Scilight Press.

Update in September 2026