Monographs: Peer Review Process
All submitted manuscripts go through a three-step review process:
1. Preliminary check
2. Plagiarism check
3. Independent peer review.
The editorial office initially reviews all manuscripts for adherence to the Monograph preparation guidelines. Articles not in compliance will be returned to the authors for corrections.
Manuscripts meeting the guidelines undergo a plagiarism check. We partner with CrossRef and utilize iThenticate for this purpose. iThenticate produces a 'similarity index', indicating word-by-word replication from previously published sources. Any manuscript with a similarity index exceeding 10% will be sent back to the authors for adjustments, without undergoing peer review. For manuscripts with a similarity index ranging between 1-10%, we rely on the guidelines of the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) concerning text recycling. Manuscripts cleared of plagiarism concerns will proceed to independent peer review.
Independent Peer Review
Manuscripts clearing the initial stages undergo a single-blind peer review, conducted by at least two topic experts. Reviewers may recommend:
i. Accept as is
ii. Require revisions
If "accept," the article progresses to production.
If "revise," the article returns to the authors for modifications. Revisions are then re-assessed by the same reviewers. Articles may undergo several revision cycles.
If "reject," the article will not proceed. Reviewer decisions are final, and the publisher remains neutral, without influencing editorial decisions.
Upon acceptance, articles undergo copy-editing before production. They're then published online in three formats: pdf, html, and xml. All content is open access, available under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. While authors retain their copyright, each monograph receives an ISBN, a DOI, and gets registered with CrossRef.
Information about the indexing process can be found under Exon Publications: Indexing.