Peer Review Process

The Scholarly Foresight follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to maintain the quality, originality and academic integrity of published research. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, reviewer recommendations and compliance with the journal’s ethical and publication policies.

1. Initial Assessment

Each manuscript is initially examined by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editorial member for relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, formatting, plagiarism and minimum academic quality. Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts clearing the initial screening are normally sent to at least two independent subject experts. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process to support impartial, fair and objective assessment.

3. Review Criteria

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Clarity of objectives and research questions
  • Appropriateness of methodology and analysis
  • Validity, reliability and significance of findings
  • Logical presentation of discussion and conclusions
  • Quality of writing, references, tables, figures and overall presentation

4. Editorial Decision

On the basis of the reviewers’ reports, one of the following decisions may be issued:

  • Accept as submitted
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

5. Revision and Final Decision

Authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments within the specified period. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering the review reports, author revisions and overall academic quality of the manuscript.

6. Ethical Standards

Reviewers and editors must maintain confidentiality, disclose conflicts of interest and evaluate manuscripts objectively. Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation or other forms of misconduct are handled in accordance with recognised publication-ethics principles and the journal’s ethical policies.

Peer-Review Workflow

Manuscript Submission
Author submits the manuscript
↓
Initial Editorial Screening
Scope, quality, format, originality and plagiarism check
↓
Initial Decision
Suitable manuscripts proceed; unsuitable manuscripts may be rejected
↓
Double-Blind Peer Review
Evaluation by at least two independent subject experts
↓
Editorial Evaluation
Decision based on reviewer reports and academic merit
↓
Accepted
Revision Required
Rejected

Policy Note: The journal reserves the right to revise its peer-review policy in accordance with developments in academic publishing standards and recognised best practices.