At MAK Hill Publications, we take pride in maintaining a rigorous and transparent peer review system to ensure the publication and dissemination of high-quality research. This page overviews our meticulous editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication. Our dedicated team of experienced editors and esteemed reviewers work together to uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity. Through this comprehensive and fair review process, we strive to facilitate the dissemination of cutting-edge knowledge and foster a vibrant scholarly community.  We  invite  authors,  reviewers, and  readers alike  to  explore  this  page and gain insights into your manuscript's meticulous journey before reaching the global scientific community.

A summary of the peer review process is given below:

Initial Screening

Once a paper is submitted, the Academic Editor will screen the manuscript and decide whether or not to send it for full peer review. This step ensures adherence to our policies, including statements   of   competing   interests,   ethical   requirements   for   studies   involving   human participants or animals, and an unacceptably low language standard. For example, the editor ensures:

• Does the manuscript fit the journal's scope, and will it be of interest to the readership?
• Is the manuscript of acceptable quality?
• Is the writing sufficiently good to warrant a review?
• Is the manuscript compliant with the journal's instructions for authors?

If the editor suggests changes to the manuscript during the initial evaluation before full peer review, the author(s) may be asked to revise it.

If the submitted manuscript does not comply with our Editorial Guidelines, it may be rejected without undergoing a full peer review.

Only the manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be sent for peer review.

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to MAK Hill Publications undergo a peer review before final acceptance and publication. As such, our priority is to make decisions on all submitted manuscripts based on the recommendations of at least two independent reviewers. To ensure this, we carefully select well-qualified reviewers with a significant number of publications and in-depth knowledge of the subject matter and methodology. [Journal Name] offers various peer review options to the author(s) and processes the manuscript according to the author's choice.

• Single-Blind Peer Review: In this peer review model, only the reviewers know the details of the submitting author(s). However, the author is not provided with the reviewer's details.
• Double-Blind Peer Review: In this peer review model, both the reviewers and the author(s) remain anonymous.
• Open Peer Review: In this model, the details of both the reviewer(s) and author(s) are made available to each other, promoting enhanced transparency and trust in the peer-review process. If the manuscript is accepted, the reviewer's reports, modifications, and the author's responses will be published alongside the article.

How are the Referees Selected?

Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and our selection criteria are based on several factors, including expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations. We avoid using reviewers who consistently demonstrate slow response times, lack attention to detail, or exhibit excessively harsh or lenient evaluations.

The journal's academic editor is responsible for inviting reviewers. Reviewers gain access to the full paper only upon accepting the invitation.

A minimum of two reviewers are assigned to each manuscript. Typically, reviewers are given 21 days to complete their review process. While editors always aim for a prompt turnaround, this may not always be feasible. However, the editorial office regularly communicates with reviewers once the paper is sent and provides weekly reminders regarding their due dates.

How Peer Review Works

Unbiased/Confidential Evaluation Process

To ensure fairness in the referee process, we make an effort to avoid selecting reviewers who:

• Have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors.
• Have previously provided feedback on drafts of the manuscript.
• Are in direct competition with the authors.
• Have a history of disputes with the authors.
• Have a financial interest in the outcome.

As the editor cannot be aware of all potential biases, we request reviewers to inform us of any factors that might influence their report, including commercial interests. If reviewers feel that they are unable to provide an objective evaluation, we encourage them to decline the review request. We do not consider it necessary to exclude reviewers who have previously reviewed a paper for another journal. The fact that multiple journals have independently identified a particular individual as qualified does not diminish the validity of their opinion.

Referee Reports

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the following aspects of the manuscript under consideration:

• Appropriateness for the journal.
• Originality of the work.
• Methodological soundness.
• Adherence to appropriate ethical guidelines.
• Proper citation of relevant literature.

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.

Final Report

A final decision regarding the manuscript's acceptance or rejection, along with any recommendations provided by the referees, will be communicated to the author. This decision may include verbatim comments from the referees.

Editor's Decision

Editors can accept, recommend modifications, seek additional external review, or reject the manuscript. In the case of a decision for Minor or Major Revision, authors are granted 21 days to submit a revised manuscript. Upon resubmission, the Academic Editor may decide to assign the manuscript to reviewers or decide based on their expertise.

Editorial Independence

At MAK Hill Publications, our publications undergo a rigorous peer review process conducted by independent  Editorial  Boards.  Our  in-house  staff  does  not  influence  editorial  decisions regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection. The academic editor makes the final decision, considering factors such as the selection of appropriate reviewers, the quality of reviewer comments and author responses, and the overall scientific merit of the paper. Our policies are guided by our mission to facilitate open and accessible dissemination of scientific research findings to a broad audience in a timely manner.

Appeals

If you wish to appeal a decision, please email the editor who handled the entire submission inquiry and review process, explaining your reasons for any complaints or the appeal. Appeals will  only  be  considered  in  cases  where a  reviewer or  editor  is  believed  to  have  made  a significant error or displayed bias or when a documented competing interest compromises objectivity. Either of these reasons could lead to a change in the original decision. All appeals will be reviewed by another editor, involving a total of three editors. The majority rule will be applied. The processing of appeals typically takes no longer than two weeks. While a manuscript is under appeal, it remains under formal consideration and should not be submitted elsewhere. Please note that we do not consider second appeals.

Acknowledgment:

"This policy is adapted from a template provided by the Asian Council of Science Editors. We appreciate their guidance in creating a robust and comprehensive policy."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.