Home / << Go Back
The peer review process at SSRG strives to be transparent, fair, thorough, and objective. It is periodically revised and outlines the standard procedure followed by the journal.
The Editor-in-Chief appoints individuals to the editorial board. Most serve as Decision Editors, who manage the peer review process. Others may be special editors responsible for non-review tasks. Selection criteria include:
Editors serve three-year terms. A second term is expected but not guaranteed; a third is based on performance. Editors are periodically assessed, and general performance metrics may be shared with the board. Detailed metrics (e.g., appeal rates) remain confidential.
Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers typically must have at least two peer-reviewed publications where they served as first or second author.
Decision editors assess each review based on quality (rated on a 1–4 scale), timeliness, and responsiveness. Reviewers with consistently inadequate performance will not be reappointed.
SSRG follows a double-blind review policy:
Authors must ensure removal of all identifying information from their manuscript before submission. While authors may suggest reviewers or editors, the journal is not obligated to use them.
Manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not share, retain, or copy them unless approved by the editor (e.g., to consult a colleague who is also bound by confidentiality).
Appeals of editorial decisions are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult senior editors or assign a new review process with different editors and reviewers.
If a published article is later found to contain errors or serious issues, an erratum or correction notice will be published as soon as possible.
Concerns about ethical misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate publication, falsification) will be investigated by SSRG. However, further investigation or disciplinary action may fall under the authority of:
Allegations will begin with written communication from the Editor-in-Chief. They may consult with other editors, outside experts (anonymized), or COPE resources. Each case is supported by at least one senior associate editor.
SSRG adheres to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and uses COPE flowcharts to resolve issues related to: