Editorial Process
All the manuscripts (except for those non peer-reviewed types) submitted to Highlights of Science journals will undergo a rigorous single-blind peer-review process by at least two independent reviewers in the relevant field, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
The editorial process is made up of several stages, outlined in the following descriptions.
1. Initial Check by the Editorial Office
Once a new submission is received, the in-house editorial staff (professionally trained managing editors) will do the initial check to determine whether the manuscript:
has been properly prepared following the journal Instructions for Authors;
is suitable for the journal / Special Issue;
meets the standards of the journal.
Obviously poor manuscripts will be rejected before peer review.
2. Academic Editor Assessment
An academic editor, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief for regular submissions, or the Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board Member in case of conflicts of interest, will be invited to check whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and whether it fits the scope of the journal. If not, the manuscript will be rejected immediately before peer review.
A single-blind peer-review process is applied for the Highlights of Science journals. It means that reviewers know the identity of authors, but authors don’t know the identity of reviewers.
Each submitted manuscript will be assessed by at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers typically have 10 days to submit their report after agreeing to review. The journal Editorial Office will follow up with late reviewers and keep authors informed if there are any delays.
Reviewers can be suggested by the academic editors at any stage before a final acceptance/rejection decision, or are identified through web searches for related articles by the in-house editorial staff. The final selected reviewers are based on their expertise, publication history, and/or past reviews for Highlights of Science journals. All reviewers must fulfil the following criteria:
hold a PhD degree or be a recognized expert in the field;
have no conflicts of interest with the authors;
not have co-authored publications with the authors in the last five years;
have recent publications in the field of the submitted manuscript.
The in-house editorial staff will assist the academic editors to handle all communications with reviewers, authors, and external editors. However, the academic editors can check the status of manuscripts, the identity of reviewers, and reviewer comments at any time.
Editor Decision
After peer-review, the academic editors will make a decision based on reviewers’ comments and their own evaluation. The following decision types are available:
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
Decisions are communicated to authors in a formal letter by the journal Editorial Office.
Authors are usually requested to revise their manuscript based on reviewers’ comments and editor recommendations within a given deadline. When resubmitting the revised manuscript, authors need to provide a cover letter with point-by-point responses to reviewers’ comments and a detailed explanation of how the manuscript has been revised. The revised version will be returned to the reviewers and the academic editors for further comments.
Apart from exceptional circumstances, a maximum of two rounds of major revision is allowed per manuscript. Authors are recommended to address all the issues raised by the reviewers right after the first round of review.
The following flowchart shows the summary of the editorial process at Highlights of Science.
The editorial process at Highlights of Science
The editorial process at Highlights of Science.
Highlights of Science
Subscribe to read the latest articles and newsletters from Highlights of Science.
Highlights of Science © 2021 ·
Privacy Policy · Terms and Conditions