Do the Editors Remove the Name of the Author for Peer Review

The MDPI Editorial Process

MDPI operates a rigorous and transparent peer-review process that aims to maximize quality. Peer-review is handled by researchers and scholars.

We believe that peer-review needs to be efficient, rigorous, and off-white for anybody involved.

In nearly MDPI journals, peer-review is a unmarried-blind assessment with at least 2 contained reviewers, followed by a last acceptance/rejection decision past the Editor-in-Chief, or some other academic editor approved by the Editor-in-Principal. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including credence decisions, approval of Guest Editors and Special Result topics, and appointing new Editorial Board members.

A summary of the editorial process is given in the flowchart below.

The MDPI editorial procedure.

The post-obit provides notes on each pace.

Pre-check

Immediately later submission, the journal's Managing Editor will perform an initial check to assess:

• Overall suitability of the manuscript to the periodical/section/Special Issue;
• Manuscript adherence to high quality research and ethical standards;
• Standards of rigor to authorize for further review.

The academic editor, i.due east., the Editor-in-Main in the instance of regular submissions, or the Guest Editor in the case of Special Effect submissions, or an Editorial Board member in case of a conflict of involvement and of regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows, will be notified of the submission and invited to perform a check and recommend reviewers. Academic editors can decide to continue with the peer-review procedure, decline a manuscript, or asking revisions before peer-review.

Guest Editors of Special Problems are not able to take decisions regarding their ain manuscripts submitted to their Special Issue, every bit this would plant a conflict of involvement. An Editorial Board member will instead be responsible for decision making. The Guest Editor will be unable to admission the review process except in their office as writer. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief, or other Editorial Lath members are not able to access the review procedure of their manuscript except in their role as writer.

Peer-review

From submission to concluding decision or publication, one dedicated MDPI staff member coordinates the review process and serves equally the main point of contact for authors, academic editors and reviewers.

The process is single-blind for most journals, meaning that the writer does not know the identity of the reviewer, simply the reviewer knows the identity of the writer. Some MDPI journals operate double-bullheaded peer-review, where in addition to the author not knowing the identity of the reviewer, the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity.

At least two review reports are nerveless for each submitted article. Suggestions of reviewers tin can be made by the bookish editor during pre-cheque. Alternatively, MDPI editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles.

Authors tin recommend potential reviewers. MDPI staff ensure that there are no potential conflicts of interest and will non consider those with competing interests. Authors can also enter the names of potential peer-reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer-review of their manuscript, during the initial submission of the manuscript. The editorial team will respect these requests as long as they exercise not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

If the journal has a reviewer board, these reviewers could utilize to review a submitted manuscript should the authors hold with this selection during submission.

The following checks are applied to all reviewers:

• That they hold no conflicts of involvement with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years;
• That they concord a PhD (exceptions are made in some fields, e.chiliad., medicine);
• They must have contempo publications in the field of the submitted paper;
• They have not recently been invited to review a manuscript for any MDPI periodical.

Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:

• Have the necessary expertise to guess manuscript quality;
• Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout peer-review;
• Maintain standards of professionalism and ideals.

Reviewers who accept a review invitation are provided seven–10 days to write their review via our online platform, SuSy. Extensions can exist granted on request.

For the review of a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within three days. Extensions can also be granted on request.

To assist academic editors, MDPI staff handle all advice with reviewers, authors, and the external editor. Academic editors can check the condition of manuscripts and the identity of reviewers at whatsoever time, and are able to discuss manuscript review at any stage with MDPI staff.

Open Peer-Review Option

MDPI journals operate an open peer-review choice, significant that the authors have the option to publish the review reports and author responses with the published paper (ofttimes referred to equally open reports). In addition, reviewers may cull to sign their reports if the review is published, in which example the reviewer proper name appears on the review written report (referred to equally open identity). The default option is for reviewers to remain bearding and for reports non to be published, reviewers and authors respectively must opt into this selection. If an article is rejected no details will be published. Open peer-review has the benefit of increasing transparency about the review process and providing farther information almost the paper for interested readers. We encourage authors to choose open up review. Further information tin can be found on our blog.

Revision

In cases where simply minor or major revisions are recommended, MDPI staff volition asking that the author revise the paper before referring to the academic editor. In cases of conflicting review reports, or where at that place are i or more recommendations for rejection, the bookish editor will exist requested for their judgement before a decision about revisions is communicated to authors.

Revised versions of manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer requested to encounter the revised version. By default, reviewers who request major revisions or recommend rejection volition be sent the revised manuscript. All reviewers can access the well-nigh recent version of the manuscript via SuSy.

A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. If more rounds are required according to the reviewers, MDPI staff request a decision from the academic editor.

Editor Decision

Acceptance decisions on manuscripts can be taken by the academic editor subsequently peer-review once a minimum of two review reports have been received. Acceptance decisions are taken by an academic editor (the Editor-in-Chief, a Guest Editor, or another suitable Editorial Board member). Guest Editors are not able to take decisions on their own papers which will instead be assigned to a suitable Editorial Board member. When making a determination, we expect that the academic editor checks the post-obit:

• The suitability of selected reviewers;
• Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
• Overall scientific quality of the newspaper.

The academic editor can select from the following options: Accept in current class, accept with minor revisions, reject and pass up resubmission, reject merely encourage resubmission, ask author for revision, or enquire for an boosted reviewer.

Reviewers brand recommendations, and the Editors-in-Chief or academic editors are gratis to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their conclusion for the do good of the authors and reviewers.

In some instances, an academic editor supports a decision of manuscript acceptance despite a reviewer recommendation to refuse. MDPI staff will seek a 2nd independent opinion from an Editorial Board member or the Editor-in-Chief earlier communicating a last decision to the authors.

Articles can only be accepted for publication by an academic editor. Employed MDPI staff then inform authors. MDPI staff never take acceptance decisions on papers.

MDPI staff or Editorial Board members (including Editors-in-Principal) are non involved in the processing of their own bookish work. Their submissions are assigned and revised by at least ii independent reviewers. Decisions are fabricated by other Editorial Board members who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors.

MDPI is a signatory of the 2012 San Francisco Announcement on Enquiry Assessment (DORA). Nosotros aim to publish all manuscripts that are scientifically correct, and do not artificially increase journal rejection rates, assuasive the reader community at large to define impact.

Production

MDPI's in-house teams perform production on all manuscripts, including linguistic communication editing, copy editing, and conversion to XML. Language editing is carried out by professional English editing staff. In the minor number of cases where extensive editing or formatting is required, we offer authors an English editing service for an additional fee (with authors' prior approval). The authors are too gratuitous to apply other English editing services, or consult a native English-speaking colleague—the latter beingness our preferred option.

Publication Ethics

MDPI is a member of the Commission on Publication Ideals (COPE), including following its Principles of Transparency and All-time Exercise in Scholarly Publishing. Our journals follow COPE's procedures for dealing with potentially unethical behavior by authors, reviewers, or editors. All MDPI editorial staff are trained in how to detect and respond to ethical issues.

Details on ethical considerations for submitting papers tin can be constitute in the instructions for authors of journals (see hither, for instance). Please refer to our policy regarding Updating Published Papers.

Ethical issues raised past readers of the journal will exist investigated by the editorial office following procedures recommended by COPE. Disputes on the validity of research reported in published papers can be settled past the Editorial Lath. For disputes effectually authorship, information ownership, author misconduct, etc., where necessary, we will refer to external organizations such as a academy ideals committee. Authors are asked to respond to any substantiated allegations made against them.

To manage authorship disputes we follow COPE guidelines, especially How to spot authorship problems. Typically, if all authors concord, the authorship tin exist updated via a Correction. If not, we require an administrative argument from the authors' institution(south) about who qualifies for authorship.

Publishing Standards and Guidelines

MDPI follow the following guidelines and standards for its journals:

ICMJE: Medically-related MDPI journals follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The guidelines comprehensively embrace all aspects of editing, from how the journal is managed to details about peer-review and handling complaints. The bulk of the recommendations are not specific to medical journals and are followed by all MDPI journals.

The Consort statement covers reporting of randomized, controlled trials. We encourage authors to verify their work against the checklist and menstruation diagram and upload them with their submission.

TOP covers transparency and openness in the reporting of research. Our journals aim to be at level 1 or 2 for all aspects of Meridian. Specific requirements vary between journals and tin can be requested from the editorial office.

Fair Principles cover guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse of data.

PRISMA covers systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors are recommended to consummate the checklist and flow diagram and include it with their submission.

Arrive contains guidelines for reporting in vivo experiments. Authors are recommended to verify their piece of work against the checklist and include it with their submission.

iThenticate is an industry-standard software for plagiarism detection. Used during the get-go screening of a manuscript or pre-check, it can also be used at any stage of the peer-review process and specially before acceptance of a manuscript for publication.

Compliance with the standards and guidelines in a higher place volition be taken into account during the final decision and whatever discrepancies should be conspicuously explained by the authors. We recommend that authors highlight relevant guidelines in their cover letter of the alphabet.

Editorial Independence

All manufactures published past MDPI are peer-reviewed and assessed past our independent Editorial Boards, and MDPI staff are not involved in decisions to accept manuscripts. When making a conclusion, nosotros expect the academic editor to brand it based solely upon:

• The suitability of selected reviewers;
• Adequacy of reviewer comments and author response;
• Overall scientific quality of the paper.

In all of our journals and in every attribute of our operation, MDPI policies are informed by the mission to brand scientific discipline and research findings open and accessible as widely and rapidly as possible.

julialableason.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.mdpi.com/editorial_process

Share this post