Process review (FAQ)

The Scientia et PRAXIS process from the reception of an article to its acceptance in a scientific journal involves several steps, coordinated by various roles including the Editor-in-Chief, the Associated Editor, the Scientific Committee, and the Editorial Committee. Here’s a detailed overview:

  1. Submission and Initial Review:
    • Reception of Article: When a new article is submitted, it is first received by the journal's editorial office.
    • Form Analysis: The Editor-in-Chief, assisted by the Associated Editor, checks if the article meets the journal’s academic and editorial guidelines. This is the initial "form analysis" to ensure basic compliance with submission requirements.
  2. Initial Reading and Content Analysis:
    • Editorial Committee: The article is assigned to members of the Editorial Committee for an initial reading, referred to as "content analysis". They determine whether the article is relevant and of sufficient quality to proceed to the Peer Review stage. 
  3. Peer Review:
    • If the article passes the initial content analysis, it enters the blind  Peer Review process.
    • Associated Editor: Manages the Peer Review process by contacting appropriate reviewers. The article is sent to specialists in the field for detailed review and feedback.
  4. Peer Review Feedback and Revision:
    • Peer Reviewers evaluate the article and provide feedback, which may include requests for revisions.
    • Associated Editor: Communicates the reviewers' feedback to the author, requesting revisions if necessary. The author then revises the article and resubmits it.
  5. Final Decision:
    • After revisions, the article may undergo additional rounds of review if needed.
    • Editor-in-Chief and Scientific Committee: The Editor-in-Chief, with input from the Scientific Committee, makes the final decision on the article’s acceptance based on the peer reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of the revised manuscript.
  6. Copy Editing and Proofreading:
    • Associated Editor: Once an article is accepted, it undergoes copy editing for spelling, grammar, and clarity to ensure it meets the journal's standards. This is also managed by the Associated Editor.
  7. Publication Preparation:
    • Layout and Design: The Associated Editor handles the layout and editorial design, ensuring the article is formatted correctly for publication.
    • Prepress and Digital Updates: The Associated Editor also manages prepress issues and updates the journal’s digital platforms.
  8. Final Publication:
    • The finalized article will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal.
    • Databases and Indexing: The Associated Editor sends the published article to various databases and indexing networks to ensure it is widely accessible and indexed.

Throughout this process, the Editor-in-Chief ensures the journal's identity and quality, coordinates the publication activities, and promotes the journal within the academic community.

The Scientific Committee maintains the journal's quality and reputation by providing expert opinions and supporting the editorial procedures.

The Editorial Committee supports the content quality and alignment with the journal’s editorial line through initial assessments and content recommendations.


1. What happens when a new submission is received, and what if any checks are made at this point?

When Scientia et PRAXIS receives a new submission, the following steps and checks are made:

  1. Reception of Article:
    • The article is initially received by the Editor-in-Chief and Associated Editor
  2. Form Analysis:
    • Editor-in-Chief and Associated Editor: The first check involves verifying if the article fulfills the journal’s academic and editorial guidelines. This step is referred to as "form analysis".
    • They ensure the submission meets basic requirements such as formatting, length, and adherence to the journal's submission guidelines.
  3. Initial Reading and Content Analysis:
    • Editorial Committee: After passing the form analysis, the article is assigned to members of the Editorial Committee for an initial reading and similarity testing.
    • During this "content analysis", they assess the similarities, relevance, quality, and suitability of the article for the journal.
    • The Editorial Committee decides if the article should proceed to the blind peer-review process or is resended to the authors, with comments to be improved or corrected.

These initial checks ensure that the article meets the necessary standards and is appropriate for the journal before it is sent for a more detailed peer review.

2. How are peer reviewers identified, and who makes the final selection of Peer Reviewers?

Peer reviewers are identified and selected through the following process:

  1. Identification of Peer Reviewers:
    • The Associated Editor is responsible for establishing direct contact with potential Peer  Reviewers.
    • Peer Reviewers are typically chosen based on their expertise and specialization in the relevant field of the submitted article.
    • The Associated Editor may use various resources such as the journal's database of reviewers, recommendations from the Editorial Committee, or suggestions from the Scientific Committee.
  2. Final Selection of Peer Reviewers:
    • The Associated Editor makes the final decision on which reviewers to contact and assign for the Peer Review of the article.
    • The selection is based on ensuring that the Peer Reviewers have the appropriate expertise and no conflicts of interest with the authors or the subject matter of the article.

By carefully selecting qualified Peer Reviewers, Scientia et PRAXIS ensures a thorough and unbiased review process, which is crucial for maintaining the quality and integrity of the published research.

3. Who assesses the reviewer reports and makes a decision on the submission, and how is the decision reached?

For Scientia et PRAXIS, the process of assessing reviewer reports and making a decision on the submission involves the following steps:

  1. Assessment of Reviewer Reports:
    • The Associated Editor receives the reviewer reports after the peer review process is completed.
    • The reports are then reviewed to ensure they provide clear, constructive, and relevant feedback on the article.
  2. Decision Making:
    • The Editor-in-Chief, often with input from the Scientific Committee, is responsible for making the final decision on the submission.
    • The decision is based on the recommendations and feedback provided by the peer reviewers, as well as the overall quality and relevance of the article.
    • The Editor-in-Chief considers whether the article meets the journal's standards, and guidelines and whether the reviewers' concerns and suggestions have been adequately addressed by the authors.
  3. Reaching the Decision:
    • Accept the article as it is.
    • Request further revisions and resubmission for another round of review.
    • Reject the article if it does not meet the necessary standards or if the revisions are insufficient.
    • After considering the reviewer reports and the authors' responses (if revisions were requested), the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

The final decision is communicated to the authors by the Associated Editor, who provides the reviewers' feedback and any additional comments or instructions from the Editor-in-Chief. This process ensures that the decision is thorough, fair, and based on expert evaluations.

4. Who communicates the decision to the authors?

The Scientia et PRAXIS Associated Editor is responsible for communicating the decision to the authors. This includes:

  1. Sending Decision Letters: The Associated Editor sends the authors a decision letter that includes the outcome of the review process (acceptance, request for revisions, or rejection).
  2. Providing Feedback: The letter contains the reviewers' feedback and any additional comments or instructions from the Editor-in-Chief.
  3. Certificates and Final Decisions: The Associated Editor also handles the issuance of certificates of acceptance, publication, and final decisions regarding the articles in the peer review process.

By managing this communication, the Associated Editor ensures that authors receive clear and detailed information about their submission's status and any required actions.

5. How is the revised manuscript assessed?

The Scientia et PRAXIS assessment of a revised manuscript follows a structured process involving several key steps:

  1. Resubmission of Revised Manuscript:
    • Authors submit the revised manuscript along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments, explaining how they addressed the feedback.
  2. Initial Check:
    • The Associated Editor performs an initial check to ensure that the revised manuscript and the authors’ responses meet the submission requirements and adequately address the reviewers’ comments.
  3. Review of Revisions:
    • The revised manuscript, along with the authors’ responses, is sent back to the original reviewers for a second evaluation. If the original reviewers are unavailable, new reviewers with relevant expertise may be selected.
    • Reviewers assess the revised manuscript to determine if the authors have sufficiently addressed their initial concerns and suggestions.
  4. Reviewer Reports:
    • Reviewers provide updated reports based on their assessment of the revisions. They may recommend acceptance, further minor revisions, or rejection if the manuscript still does not meet the required standards.
  5. Final Decision:
    • The Editor-in-Chief, with input from the Scientific Committee, if necessary, reviews the updated reviewer reports and the revised manuscript.
    • The final decision is based on whether the revisions have successfully addressed the reviewers’ feedback and if the manuscript now meets the journal’s quality standards.
  6. Communication to Authors:
    • The Associated Editor communicates the final decision to the authors, providing them with the updated reviewer reports and any additional comments from the Editor-in-Chief.

This thorough reassessment ensures that the revised manuscript has been rigorously evaluated and meets the journal’s standards before it is accepted for publication.

6. What is the role of the editorial board in the Peer Review process?

The Scientia et PRAXIS Editorial Board plays a crucial role in the Peer Review process, involving several key responsibilities:

  1. Initial Reading and Content Analysis:
    • Members of the Editorial Committee (a part of the Editorial Board) conduct an initial reading of the submitted articles to decide if they should proceed to the blind Peer Review process. This step, known as "content analysis," assesses the relevance and quality of the submission.
  2. Ensuring Similarity, Quality and Compliance:
    • The Editorial Committee ensures that articles that pass the initial review fulfill the submission requirements and comply with the journal’s content quality standards.
  3. Nominating Reviewers and Articles:
    • Members of the Editorial Board may suggest suitable peer reviewers based on their expertise and familiarity with the subject matter.
    • They may also nominate articles that are particularly interesting or relevant to the journal’s scope and themes.
  4. Suggesting Topics and Coordinators:
    • The Editorial Committee can propose topics for the thematic sections of the journal and suggest coordinators for specific issues.
  5. Supporting the Journal’s Identity:
    • By ensuring the academic and artistic quality of the content, the Editorial Committee supports and strengthens the journal's identity according to its editorial line. may be involved in reviewing revised manuscripts or providing recommendations on complex submissions that require additional expertise
      Review and Recommendations:
      In some cases, members of the Editorial Committee send their recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Committee regarding the submission of the article on complex submissions that require additional expertise..
  6. Review and Recommendations:

    The members of the Editorial Board send their final recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Committee regarding the submission of the article and on complex submissions that require additional expertise.

Overall, the Editorial Board ensures the quality, relevance, and alignment of submitted articles with the journal's standards and scope, thereby maintaining the integrity and academic reputation of the journal.

7. Who is responsible for the final decision to accept/reject the article?

The Scientia et PRAXIS Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject an article. This decision-making process involves several steps:

  1. Review of Peer Reviewer Reports:
    • The Editor-in-Chief reviews the feedback and recommendations provided by the peer reviewers.
  2. Consultation with the Scientific Committee:
    • The Editor-in-Chief may consult with the Scientific Committee for additional input and to ensure the decision aligns with the journal's quality standards and scope.
  3. Consideration of Revisions:
    • If the article was revised, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates the revised manuscript along with the authors’ responses to the reviewers' comments to ensure all issues have been adequately addressed.
  4. Making the Final Decision:
    • Based on the peer reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the revised manuscript, and any additional input from the Scientific Committee, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision to accept or reject the article.

The Scientia et PRAXIS Editor-in-Chief’s role is crucial in maintaining the journal’s academic integrity and ensuring that published articles meet the highest standards of quality and relevance.