Peer Review Policy

Editorial Standard

Peer Review Policy

Synergy Publication employs a double-blind peer review process to maintain scientific quality, accuracy, and fairness. Double-blind review ensures that author names and affiliations are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer names remain anonymous to the authors.

Double-Blind Fair & Objective Scientific Quality

Section 01 Structured Process

The Peer Review Lifecycle

Every submission undergoes the following structured evaluation path to ensure the highest standards of academic publishing:

Initial Screening

The Managing Editor checks the manuscript for formatting, plagiarism, and alignment with the journal's scope. Manuscripts with poor formatting, high similarity indexes, or unrelated subject matter are rejected immediately.

Reviewer Allocation

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to at least two independent expert peer reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, citation records, and lack of conflicts of interest.

Peer Review Feedback

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against criteria of originality, methodology, clarity, and contribution. They submit detailed reports and recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept without changes

Minor revision

Major revision

Reject

Editorial Decision

The Editor evaluates the reviews and makes a decision. If revision is required, authors are given 14 to 30 days to address comments and resubmit.

Re-review (If required)

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for confirmation to ensure all feedback was properly addressed.

Final Acceptance & Copyediting

Once accepted, the article is copyedited, formatted, assigned a unique DOI, and published online for global access.

Efficiency & Quality

45 to 60 Days Turnaround

We target a rapid average turnaround time from initial submission to final publication, without compromising peer review rigor.

Rigorous Screening Expert Review Timely Processing