Dual-Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR)
The manuscript will be handled by one MSPL journal editor who will coordinate the review process and serve as the main contact person for the authors and reviewers.
MSPL’s journals follow double anonymous peer review, which means that the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers and the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. The peer review results are evaluated by the academic and editorial committee, and at least two anonymous peer review reports are required for each submitted manuscript. If there is a significant divergence and disagreement in the review opinions, the journal editor will invite a third peer review expert to review.
The journal's reviewers should have a sense of social responsibility and a passion for serving academia.
The following standards apply to all Dual-Anonymous Peer Review reviewers:
Reviewers who are accepted for review should:
Reviewers who accept the invitation to review have 15-20 days to write a review report and can request an extension to submit their review opinion as required.
When preparing a double anonymous manuscript, follow these guidelines:
Remove all personal information about the authors from the manuscript, including but not limited to names, affiliations, and institutions. Remove direct citations to the authors' previous publications in the reference list. It is recommended to display all citations in full so that reviewers and editors can fully evaluate your work.
When submitting, remove the institutional or funding information in the funding/ethics/acknowledgment section of the manuscript, but this information can be added to the non-anonymous source file required when submitting the revision.
The above is an introduction to Dual-Anonymous Peer Review; please use the anonymous manuscript format on our journal website to complete your submission.
Editorial Process
MSPL operates a rigorous peer review process that aims to maximize quality. Overview of the Publication Process.
Manuscript Preparation
Detailed research and meticulous writing adhering to journal guidelines are crucial for a compelling submission. This includes thorough literature review, careful methodology design, and clear presentation of findings with appropriate citations and references.
Submission
Careful formatting and adherence to submission requirements ensure a smooth start to the review process. This involves preparing cover letters, abstracts, keywords, and supplementary materials according to the target journal's specifications.
Peer Review
Expert evaluation provides constructive feedback, enhancing the quality and credibility of the research. Reviewers assess methodology, relevance, originality, and significance while identifying potential improvements or concerns.
Revisions
Addressing reviewer comments thoroughly strengthens the manuscript and demonstrates responsiveness. This iterative process may involve multiple rounds of revision to refine arguments, clarify methods, or incorporate additional analyses.
Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer recommendations and their own assessment, editors make decisions to accept, request further revisions, or reject manuscripts. This critical evaluation ensures only high-quality research meets publication standards.
Production Process
Once accepted, manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading to ensure accuracy and adherence to the journal's style. Authors review proofs before final publication.
Publication
The final manuscript is published online and/or in print, assigned identifiers like DOIs, and indexed in relevant databases. This culmination of the process makes the research accessible to the wider scientific community.