Research articles and most other types of articles published in Trends Academics journals are subject to peer review, usually conducted by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Submissions first undergo a quality check to ensure they are complete before an Editor assesses their suitability for the peer review process. The editorial board of Trends Academics fully manages the scientific quality standards of the journal. If the assigned Editor has a conflict of interest, such as being listed as an author or having any other competing interests related to the manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be tasked with overseeing the peer review. Editors consider the evaluations from peer reviewers when making decisions on manuscripts; however, they are not required to adhere strictly to the reviewers' recommendations. Authors will receive the peer review reports together with the Editor's final decision on their submission.
All journals published by Trends Academics implement a single-blind peer review system, in which the identities of the authors are known to editors and reviewers, but the authors do not know who the editors and reviewers are. This approach helps ensure the independence of the review process. To confirm the originality of the submitted manuscripts before publication, Trends Academics screens all manuscripts with iThenticate during peer review. Manuscripts showing a similarity index above 15% (excluding references) will be rejected, even if the similarity stems from the authors' own previously published work (self-plagiarism).
When a manuscript is submitted to a Trends Academics journal, the following outlines the initial review process for all manuscripts:
It undergoes a quality check (QC) by the editorial office, usually within one day. This step ensures that all required information is included in the submission and screens for plagiarism, including unintentional plagiarism and self-plagiarism, using iThenticate before the manuscript is forwarded to a scientific editor for evaluation.
The editor-in-chief assigns the manuscript to an associate editor, considering both expertise and workload balance, typically within one day. Manuscripts that pass the QC are reviewed by the editor-in-chief to assess their scientific merit and relevance. The manuscript may be rejected for poor quality or out of scope, returned for major revision, or assigned to a suitable associate editor for further review.
The handling associate editor recommends and selects at least two reviewers for the manuscript, generally within 3–4 days. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, publication record, and prior review performance. They are invited to provide constructive feedback on the submission.
Reviewers are given a strict three-week deadline to complete their evaluations, with the invitation process taking up to three days. Once reviews are received, the associate editor compiles a recommendation informed by reviewer feedback and personal assessment, which is then submitted to the editor-in-chief for a final decision.
The editor-in-chief makes the final decision, and the editorial office communicates the outcome to the corresponding author and all co-authors. This concludes the first-round review.
For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the revised version accompanied by a detailed rebuttal letter will be re-evaluated, usually by the original reviewers, under a second three-week review period. Failure to adequately address the comments may lead to immediate rejection, though multiple review rounds can occur if new concerns arise at the editors' discretion. Manuscripts needing only minor revisions may be assessed solely by the associate editor without additional external review. The final publication decision always rests with the editor-in-chief. Manuscripts rejected with encouragement to revise and resubmit may be reviewed by the same or different reviewers and editors.
The review procedure for special issue papers follows the same steps as for regular submissions. While the timeline guidelines aim for prompt processing, adherence to these timeframes cannot be guaranteed for every submission.
Appeals will be reviewed individually and must be submitted in writing to the journal's editorial office. Appeals based on novelty or scope are unlikely to be successful.
