Peer Review Process at IntechOpen Explained
Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published. Peer review helps the publisher (the External Editor in IntechOpen’s case) decide whether the submitted work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or is rejected. For a flowchart description of the peer review process at IntechOpen please see below.
IntechOpen is dedicated to publishing high-quality content and we are a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and all referees and Editors are instructed to review submissions in line with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer reviewers.
There is a wealth of further information regarding peer review available and we would encourage our editors, authors, and reviewers to educate themselves further regarding this process. A clearer understanding of the peer review process can only lead to greater transparency in the benefits that peer review affords, maintain high standards of peer review, and also allows reviewers and authors to participate in the peer review process.
The independently appointed External Editor manages the peer review and decision-making process. The Internal Editor has a more hands-on role in the workflow and is responsible for author acquisition. As a result, author acquisition and manuscript review are completely independent. This distinction between Internal and External Editor roles (summarized below) ensures a fully robust and objective peer review process.
|Scope and keywords||External Editor|
|Author acquisition||Internal Editor|
|Manuscript receipt||Internal Editor|
|Manuscript review||External Editor|
|Contents listing||External Editor|
|Final title and preface||External Editor|
As defined in the editorial guidelines, should the External Editor wish to contribute a chapter the peer review for the chapter is overseen by the Internal Editor.
Monographs are subject to peer review to ensure that they comply with accepted scientific and ethical requirements. Each monograph is submitted to a plagiarism check, prior to peer review. Reviewers for monographs are independent experts who volunteer their time and expertise. Please note that the Open Access Publication fee is payable only after the manuscript has been accepted following peer review.
Book chapter manuscripts are submitted as contributions to edited volumes. All chapters undergo peer review which is organized by the external editor, who may also act as a reviewer. Should the external editor submit a chapter it is reviewed by an independent reviewer. Once all chapters selected for inclusion have been reviewed and accepted, the book is ready for production, and then publication. Please note that the Open Access Publication fee is payable only after the manuscript has been accepted following peer review.
1. Chapter Proposal - Prospective authors are required to submit a chapter proposal. Chapter proposals should contain: a tentative title, keywords; short topic description of the proposed chapter (100 - 150 words), and the names of all contributing authors and their corresponding affiliations. External Editors who are experts in their field have overall responsibility for the scientific content of the publication. The external editor reviews all chapter proposals, selects topics for inclusion, decides on the focus, suggests improvements based on developments within the field. Chapters that do not fall within the scope and topics of the book, are scientifically unsound or are incomplete are rejected.
2. Full Chapter - A full chapter consists of: a title, author name(s) and affiliation(s), abstract, keywords, introduction, main body with numbered headings (at least one heading is required) and references. Authors may also provide acknowledgements, appendices, and nomenclatures; however, this is not mandatory. Full chapters allow authors to present their current research findings in a longer format than traditional journal articles with more comprehensive analysis. Once submitted, the editor(s) review the full chapters by screening them for plagiarism, evaluating scientific merit, and decides whether they are suitable for inclusion in the book. Authors typically receive their peer review results within 30 days of the submission date.
During the review process the external editor(s) is responsible for making decisions regarding acceptance, requesting revisions, or rejecting.
Authors may file an appeal if they suspect that their manuscript was improperly reviewed. Appeals should be addressed to your dedicated Author Service Manager or to firstname.lastname@example.org.