DETSOC Transactions on Industry Applications

Peer Review Policy

All submissions to the journal undergo an initial screening for completeness and compliance with the journal’s scope and guidelines. Submissions that do not meet these basic requirements may be desk-rejected before peer review. Once a submission passes this initial check, it is assigned to an Editor who evaluates its suitability for peer review.

If an Editor has a conflict of interest (e.g., is listed as an author on the manuscript or has a personal/professional relationship with the authors), another Editorial Board member will be assigned to manage the review process to ensure impartiality.

Editors carefully consider peer review reports when making decisions but are not strictly bound by their recommendations. If a single reviewer or the Editor raises a serious concern, the manuscript may be rejected. Authors receive peer review reports along with the editorial decision.

Peer Reviewer Selection

Choosing appropriate peer reviewers is essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

• Expertise in the relevant field of study.
• Reputation and previous contributions to the field.
• Recommendations from subject-matter experts.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.
• Previous performance as a peer reviewer (if applicable).

Editors aim to secure at least two independent peer reviewers for manuscripts that report primary research or secondary analyses of primary research. In exceptional cases, particularly in niche or emerging fields, it may not always be possible to obtain two independent reviews. If only one peer review is available, the Editor must ensure the review meets rigorous quality standards before making a decision.

Peer Review Standards

To maintain high-quality peer review, reports should:

• Be written in English and provide detailed, constructive feedback.
• Evaluate the appropriateness of the research methods used.
• Assess the accuracy and validity of the results.
• Determine whether the conclusions are well-supported by the findings.
• Include clear, evidence-based reasoning for recommendations.

Editors should avoid making decisions based on superficial or brief reports that do not provide a well-reasoned justification for their recommendations.

Ensuring Impartiality

To prevent potential biases in peer review:

• Editors must independently verify the contact details of suggested reviewers.
• Institutional email addresses should be used whenever possible.
• Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the authors.

Editorial Discretion and Review Transparency

In rare cases where securing two independent reviewers is not possible, the Editor may:

• Act as a second reviewer if they have sufficient expertise in the subject.
• Sign the review report to ensure transparency in the process.
• Accept a single review report only if it is thorough and well-reasoned.
• Ensure the first reviewer is a recognized expert in the field with recent publications.

Non-Peer Reviewed Content

Certain types of articles, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries, and Opinion pieces, may be published without undergoing formal peer review. In such cases:

• The Editor may assess the manuscript if it falls within their area of expertise.
• If the topic is outside the Editor’s expertise, at least one independent expert or Editorial Board Member should review it.

Conflicts of Interest

Potential peer reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must recuse themselves from the process.

Confidentiality

All communications between Editors and peer reviewers are strictly confidential. Reviewers should not share any manuscript-related information with third parties or discuss the manuscript outside the journal’s review process.