All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

Initial manuscript evaluation:

Editors make an initial evaluation of all manuscripts submitted to the journal. Manuscripts rejected at this stage typically are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least one expert for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed as soon as possible, usually within 1-2 weeks of receipt.

Peer Review Process:

SARC Publisher employs rapid blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

Referee Selection:                                              

Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise.

Referee reports:

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

1.       Is original

2.       Is methodologically sound

3.       Follows appropriate ethical guidelines

4.       Has a result which are clearly presented and support the conclusions

5.       Correctly references previous relevant work

6.       Is well written

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may suggest corrections to the manuscript.

Policy of Screening for Plagiarism

Papers submitted to Scientific Academic Research Council and Publisher will be screened for plagiarism using Similarity Check / iThenticate plagiarism detection tools.

Duration of Review process

The process will takes 8 weeks