Peer review process
 
Upon online submission, the uploaded files are converted to a single PDF file, which is used in the peer-review process. The editors retain a right to reject the submission without review if it fails to meet the following criteria:
  • It is beyond the scope of the journal (for aims and scope see link);
  • It does not offer substantial new knowledge nor added value;
  • It fails to present the global dimension of the discussed issues;
  • It fails to meet the editorial guidelines (for a guide for authors see link, template);
  • It is written in poor English;
  • It contains serious mistakes or faults;
  • It contains poor bibliography: out-of-date, locally-published entries that are not included in SCOPUS database (at least 50% of entries should be cited in SCOPUS; max 2 self-citations; max 50% self-citations of SDQ articles).


The authors are welcome to submit the names and e-mail addresses of potential reviewers because they know best who is an expert in their field. However, the Editors retain the sole right to decide who reviews the manuscript. Reviewers are appointed based on their expertise in the appropriate field. All manuscripts are refereed by two reviewers in a double-blind review process, which ensures an objective and impartial evaluation of scientific merit of the paper. The reviewing operation is managed through the submission system. Reviewers are given 4 weeks to return their review and reminders are sent. However the journal cannot guarantee a time to decision since reviewers may be late, or there may be problems in finding the right reviewer. In all cases the journal editorial office will endeavour to manage the process as fast as possible.

SDQ complies with the Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
(https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf) which provides a comprehensive guide to the ethics of peer review.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript taking into consideration:
  • Novelty and originality of the work;
  • Significance to the field;
  • Rigorous methodology;
  • Study design and clarity:
    • Is the title of the paper relevant to its content?
    • Is the problem well defined in the introduction?
    • Has the author well defined the aim of the paper, research questions and hypothesis?
    • Do the results presented in the paper solve the problem and develop the hypothesis stated in the introduction towards a well-developed research hypothesis?
    • Do the results of the research imply the use of methods whose range and sensitivity resolves the research problem and validate the hypothesis?
    • Does the content of the paper contain sufficient arguments to reach conclusions?
    • Is the language correct?
    • Is bibliography accurate and sufficient?
    • Does the paper contain fragments that are lengthy and rambling?
    • Does the paper contain fragments that require further elaboration?
    • Does the article represent a worthwhile contribution to scholarship in the field?
  • Quality of content;
  • The scale of proposed solutions;
  • Predicted interest in the paper;
  • Purpose of publishing the paper.


On receipt of at least two reviews, the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision of (1) accept, (2) minor revision, (3) major revision, or (4) reject. The reasons for the decision will be communicated to the authors. If a manuscript does not meet the standards of the journal or has other major deficiencies, the reviewers will express constructive criticism to help the authors improve their paper. If a manuscript is acceptable for publication but needs to be improved, the authors can submit the revised paper. However, they should address all of the reviewers’ suggestions; if the author disagrees with the reviewers’ comments, they should provide a point-by-point rebuttal to every comment. When the decision of minor/major revision is made, and the authors do not revise their articles satisfactorily after receiving reviewer report, then the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject the article. When revised articles are received they will either be sent out for further review or the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision depending on the level of revision requested.

Revised manuscript submission
The authors will be informed of the reviewers’ decision to either accept (with or without revision) or reject the manuscript. When the manuscript is requested to be revised, the authors should do so as soon as possible.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editors reserve the right to make necessary corrections to the manuscript without consulting the author, including editorial changes and stylistic errors.

The manuscript may not be changed once it is published.

SDQ does not charge authors an open access publication fee

General duties and responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief and International Editorial Board members
The Editor-in-Chief and International Editorial Board members should take all reasonable steps to encourage the quality of the material they publish. They strive to improve the journal, and meet the needs of readers and authors.
The Editor-in-Chief accepts or rejects articles based on reviews, and makes the final decision on publishing or rejecting an article.
Editorial board members act as ambassadors for the journal, supporting and promoting it. They seek the best authors and actively encourage submissions. They review submissions to the journal, attend member meetings, and accept commissions to write reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area. Editors and Editorial Board members champion the freedom of expression and maintain the integrity of the academic record. Editors are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
 
eISSN:2544-994X
ISSN:2300-8741