Peer Review Process

Quality Assurance

Peer Review Process

Independent Review • Academic Quality • Editorial Integrity

Salus Publica: Journal of Community Service applies a Double-Blind Peer Review process for scholarly manuscripts submitted for publication. The peer-review process is intended to ensure the academic quality, relevance, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and contribution of manuscripts before publication.

Double-Blind Peer Review Model

Under the journal's Double-Blind Peer Review model, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors during the review process.

Authors are therefore required to submit a manuscript prepared for anonymous review. Information that may directly identify the authors, including names, affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgements, and other identifying details, should not appear in the anonymized manuscript submitted for peer review.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant scholarly or professional expertise in the subject area.

Editorial and Peer Review Workflow

1
Submission and Administrative Check

Submitted manuscripts are first checked by the editorial office for completeness and compliance with the journal's submission requirements, author guidelines, manuscript format, required declarations, and other administrative requirements.

2
Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal's focus and scope and meets the journal's minimum scholarly, ethical, and editorial standards.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet minimum scholarly standards, or do not satisfy essential submission requirements may be declined without external peer review.

3
Manuscript Anonymization Check

Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial office verifies that the review version does not contain author names, affiliations, contact information, acknowledgements, or other information that may directly reveal the authors' identities.

4
Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are assigned to at least two independent reviewers selected according to their expertise and relevance to the manuscript's subject area.

Reviewers should not have competing interests or relationships that could reasonably compromise the independence or objectivity of their assessment.

5
Independent Peer Review

Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide scholarly comments and recommendations concerning its originality, relevance, methodology or implementation, results, interpretation, presentation, references, ethical considerations, and contribution to community service, community engagement, or community development.

6
Editorial Decision

The responsible editor considers the reviewers' reports and determines the appropriate editorial decision.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision; or
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the final outcome. Final responsibility for the editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the editor formally assigned to the manuscript.

7
Author Revision

When revision is required, the authors receive the reviewers' and/or editor's comments and are asked to submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how the comments have been addressed.

Revised manuscripts should remain anonymized while they are still undergoing double-blind peer review.

8
Re-Review When Required

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the responsible editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Additional review rounds may be conducted when necessary.

9
Final Acceptance and Production

A manuscript is accepted only after the responsible editor is satisfied that the required revisions have been adequately addressed and that the manuscript meets the journal's scholarly, ethical, and editorial standards.

Following acceptance, author identification and complete publication metadata are restored or verified as required, and the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout, proofreading, metadata preparation, and publication.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to consider:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
  • Originality and scholarly contribution;
  • Clarity of objectives or community problems addressed;
  • Appropriateness of methods, interventions, or implementation procedures;
  • Validity and clarity of results or outcomes;
  • Community participation and engagement, where applicable;
  • Interpretation and discussion of findings;
  • Practical and scholarly implications;
  • Quality and relevance of references;
  • Ethical considerations and research integrity; and
  • Overall clarity, organization, and scholarly presentation.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected to provide objective and constructive assessments, protect confidential information obtained through the review process, and disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors, contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript, disclose manuscript content to unauthorized parties, or use unpublished material contained in the manuscript for personal advantage.

Maintaining Double-Blind Anonymity

Authors should prepare their manuscripts in a manner that minimizes information that could reasonably reveal their identities during peer review.

Where reference to the authors' previous work is necessary, authors should cite and discuss such work in the same scholarly manner as other references and should avoid unnecessary wording that explicitly identifies the cited work as their own.

Review Time

The journal aims to conduct editorial screening and peer review efficiently. Actual processing time may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the number of review rounds required. Authors are informed of editorial decisions through the journal's online submission system.

Special Issues and Thematic Collections

Scholarly manuscripts submitted to special issues or thematic collections are subject to the same editorial standards, publication ethics requirements, and double-blind peer-review process as regular submissions. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for editorial oversight.

Peer Review Summary
Review Model
Double-Blind Peer Review
Minimum Reviewers
Two Independent Reviewers
Author Identity
Hidden from Reviewers
Reviewer Identity
Hidden from Authors
Initial Screening
Editor-in-Chief / Assigned Editor
Final Decision
Editor-in-Chief / Assigned Editor