Review & Evaluation Policy

Double-Blind Anonymity

Identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed to prevent reviewer bias or personal conflicts of interest.

Stage 1: Editorial Check

Immediate preliminary screening for plagiarism (iThenticate), journal scope fit, reference currency, and language quality within 7 days.

Stage 2: Expert Review

Detailed evaluation by two or more domain specialists scoring technical quality, originality, and depth of research.

Stage 3: Editor Decision

Synthesis of expert referee reports by Journal Editors to issue an accept, revision, or reject verdict with feedback.

The Peer Review Process

OASIS Journals employs a rigorous peer review system to guarantee academic quality, methodological integrity, and clarity of presentation. Every submitted manuscript undergoes a structured 3-stage evaluation prior to final publication approval.

Double-blind peer review eliminates potential bias based on geographic origin, institutional affiliation, or author reputation, fostering impartial academic evaluation.

Stage One – Editorial Office Screening

Upon initial submission, the manuscript undergoes preliminary technical screening in the Editorial Office to verify compliance before assignment to peer reviewers (typically completed within 7 days):

Plagiarism & Similarity Check: Manuscripts undergo iThenticate similarity detection. Unacceptable overlap results in immediate rejection.
Scope Verification: Ensures topic alignment with the targeted journal. Manuscripts outside scope may be suggested for transfer.
Reference Currency: Authors are encouraged to cite recent scientific literature (published within the last 5 years).
Language & Formatting: Basic grammatical correctness and compliance with journal author guidelines.

Stage Two – External Peer Review

Once passed by the Editorial Office, anonymized manuscripts are assigned to two or more independent external reviewers with domain expertise. Reviewers evaluate originality, technical quality, methodology, and depth of research (1 to 4 weeks turnaround).

Reviewer Recommendations:

Requires minor corrections
Requires moderate revision
Requires major revision
Not suitable for publication (with explicit rationale)

Note: If referee reports present conflicting recommendations, a third independent reviewer is appointed to resolve the discrepancy.

Stage Three – Editor's Final Decision

The Journal Editor reviews the original manuscript, referee reports, and author revision responses to issue one of the following decisions:

Accept as it is: Scheduled directly for layout and publication.
Accept with minor corrections: Author completes final minor edits before publication.
Requires major corrections: Manuscript returned for significant revision and re-evaluation.
Re-review required: Revised manuscript is re-sent to original reviewers for second-round validation.
Reject: Manuscript does not meet publication standards.