Universal Academic Publishing

🔍 Peer Review Process

Universal Academic Publishing follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure the scholarly integrity, objectivity, and quality of all published research.

1. Review Model: Double-Blind

In this model:

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
• This protects against bias and promotes impartial evaluation.

2. Review Workflow

• Initial Screening (Desk Review):
  • Manuscripts are checked for scope relevance, originality, formatting, and compliance with ethical standards.
  • Manuscripts that fail to meet basic criteria are returned to authors without external review.
• Assignment to Reviewers:
  • Suitable submissions are assigned to at least two independent experts in the relevant field.
  • Reviewers assess the manuscript’s contribution, methodology, data integrity, analysis, conclusions, and clarity.
• Review Timeline:
  • The review process typically takes 4–6 weeks from the date of assignment.
  • Authors may be requested to revise and resubmit based on feedback.
• Editorial Decision:
  • Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor may take one of the following decisions:
  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject
• Re-review (if required):
  • Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers before a final decision is made.
• Final Acceptance & Production:
  • Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout formatting, and eventual online publication.

3. Reviewer Selection & Confidentiality

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflict of interest. All reviews are confidential, and reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors.

4. Appeals & Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal editorial decisions must submit a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editor or advisory board, and decisions are final.