Peer Review Policy

 

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems

At Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, peer review is central to maintaining the journal’s academic quality, integrity, and scientific value. Our journal employs a double-blind peer review process, in which both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the evaluation.

This policy outlines our peer review standards in alignment with COPE’s “Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.”

  1. Review Model: Double-Blind
  • The authors are unaware of the identities of the reviewers.
  • Reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities.
  • Manuscripts must be submitted in anonymized format; identifying information is removed before review.
  1. Reviewer Selection
  • Reviewers are selected based on subject matter expertise, publication history, and availability.
  • At least two independent reviewers evaluate each manuscript.
  • In some cases, a third reviewer or consultation with the editorial board is required to resolve conflicting reviews.
  1. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript according to:

  • Originality and significance of the work
  • Theoretical contribution or applied value
  • Methodological soundness
  • Academic rigor and clarity
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  1. Review Timeline
  • The average time from submission to first decision is 4–6 weeks.
  • Reviewers are given 3–4 weeks to return their reviews.
  • Extensions may be granted on request; prompt communication is encouraged.
  1. Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain objectivity, professionalism, and respect
  • Provide constructive feedback
  • Avoid personal or discriminatory language
  • Keep all manuscript materials confidential
  • Decline to review if there is any conflict of interest
  1. Editorial Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief or designated section editor makes the final decision based on reviewer input. Possible outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions)
  • Reject

Authors are provided with detailed reviewer comments to support revisions or explain decisions.

  1. Appeals and Resubmissions

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written justification to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed internally and, if appropriate, involve external experts.

Resubmitted manuscripts are treated as new submissions unless explicitly invited by the editor.

  1. Reviewer Confidentiality and Anonymity
  • Reviewers must not share, cite, or use content from reviewed manuscripts before publication.
  • All peer review activity is confidential and secured through our submission system.
  1. Ethical Review Process

Any suspected ethical misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) encountered by reviewers must be reported to the editors. All such cases are investigated in accordance with COPE protocols.

  1. Recognition

Reviewers may request official confirmation of their service. The journal may also issue annual acknowledgments to reviewers without compromising anonymity.