Peer Review Policy

1. Review Process:

• "Journal for Current Sign" (JCS) employs a double-blind peer review process, ensuring anonymity for both authors and reviewers.
• Submitted manuscripts are assigned to two or three qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
• Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and objective feedback on the manuscript's originality, scientific rigor, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal's scope, and overall quality.
• Authors receive anonymized reviews containing detailed comments and suggestions for improvement.
• Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript.

2. Reviewer Selection:

• JCS maintains a database of qualified reviewers with expertise in various areas of current sign research.
• Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.
• JCS strives for diversity in its reviewer pool, considering factors such as geographic location, academic background, and gender.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities:

• Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the review process and avoid any actions that could compromise the anonymity of authors or reviewers.
• Reviews should be conducted in a timely manner and meet the expected turnaround time established by the journal.
• Reviewers should provide objective and constructive feedback, focusing on the merits of the manuscript without personal bias or prejudice.
• Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as prior collaborations with the authors or direct competition with the research presented in the manuscript.

4. Author Responsibilities:

• Authors are expected to submit original and unpublished work that adheres to the journal's submission guidelines.
• Authors should respond to reviewers' comments in a professional and timely manner, addressing the feedback and making necessary revisions where appropriate.
• Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as funding sources or collaborations with individuals or organizations mentioned in the manuscript.

5. Appeal Process:

• Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they believe it was made in error or without due consideration.
• Appeals should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief and should clearly outline the reasons for the appeal.
• The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may consult with additional reviewers or seek other advice before making a final decision.