Manuscripts normally undergo an initial pre-check, external peer review by at least two independent reviewers, revision where required, and a final editorial decision. All manuscripts must be submitted through our online submission system, where authors can track the complete status of their manuscript throughout the publication process.
Before submitting, authors are strongly encouraged to review the journal's Author Guidelines as well as our Editorial Policies and Ethical Oversight standards, to ensure the submission fully complies with our requirements and criteria.
Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts a technical and administrative assessment to confirm compliance with the journal's requirements. This review may include:
- Author details, affiliations, and corresponding author information.
- Conflict-of-interest disclosures.
- Ethical approval statements and consent declarations, where applicable.
- Funding statements, acknowledgements, and data-availability information, where required.
- Formatting, structure, and completeness of the manuscript files.
- Quality and clarity of figures, tables, supplementary files, and graphical materials.
If any required element is incomplete, unclear, or non-compliant, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for correction before further processing.
As part of the pre-check, we may also carry out integrity and authorship verification procedures, including:
- Similarity screening through Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate) or an equivalent tool.
- Verification of author names, affiliations, institutional email addresses, and digital identifiers such as ORCID, where available.
- Confirmation of co-author details and authorship compliance where necessary.
- Review of disclosed or apparent AI-assisted content, particularly in figures, graphical abstracts, and text summaries, in line with journal policy.
Once the manuscript has passed the technical and integrity checks, the Editor-in-Chief or designated Academic Editor conducts an editorial assessment. This stage may consider:
- Alignment with the journal's scope and aims.
- Scientific or scholarly merit.
- Originality, relevance, and clarity of contribution.
- Compliance with ethical and editorial standards.
- Overall suitability for external peer review.
Minor technical issues may be addressed alongside revision where appropriate; however, no manuscript proceeds to production until all mandatory technical, ethical, and quality requirements have been fully satisfied.
Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope may, at the author's discretion, be transferred to another relevant journal during the editorial pre-check stage. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum academic or ethical standards will be rejected.
NexQ Research Consortium operates a single-blind peer-review model — reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but reviewer identities are never disclosed to the authors.
Manuscripts that pass editorial pre-check are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter. In some cases, an additional reviewer may be invited when further specialist input is needed.
The review process is managed by the Editorial Office in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, the designated Academic Editor, or any other authorized handling editor. Every reasonable effort is made to avoid conflicts of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers — reviewers with an actual, potential, or perceived conflict, including recent collaboration or institutional overlap, will not be assigned to the manuscript.
Once peer-review reports are received, the handling academic editor evaluates the comments and recommendations and issues an editorial outcome:
For a more detailed description of the reviewer workflow and operational procedures, see our Peer Review Process page.
Where revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers' and editors' comments within the applicable timeframe.
Alongside reviewer comments, the Editorial Office may also communicate additional quality or compliance issues identified during processing, including matters relating to formatting, ethical documentation, figures, references, duplicate references, citation relevance, or excessive self-citation.
| Revision Type | Expected Turnaround | Maximum Period | Re-review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minor revision | 7–10 days | 21 days | Usually assessed by the Editor-in-Chief / handling editor; may return to the original reviewer(s) if confirmation is needed. |
| Major revision | 14–21 days | 45 days | Normally returned to the original reviewer(s); an alternative expert is invited if a reviewer is unavailable. |
An extension may be requested before the deadline in either case.
After each round of peer review or revision, the handling academic editor reviews the manuscript, the authors' responses, and the reviewer reports before reaching a decision.
Although reviewer recommendations are considered carefully, the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Academic Editor. Where necessary, the editor may request further clarification, invite an additional review, or issue a final decision based on the available record and the journal's standards.
The Editorial Office supports the process administratively, but does not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.
Authors have the option to appeal a rejection by emailing the journal's Editorial Office. An appeal must include a comprehensive justification, with a detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewers' and/or editor's comments.
Appeals should be supported by sound reasoning and substantial evidence that counteracts the criticisms in the rejection letter. A difference of opinion regarding the manuscript's interest, novelty, or suitability for the journal is not regarded as a valid basis for appeal.
After acceptance, each manuscript is published online as an early-access version in line with our continuous publication model, allowing timely dissemination of the research. A unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is generated and assigned to the article, making it fully citable.
The manuscript then proceeds through production, which includes language editing, typesetting, proofreading, figure and table preparation, and verification of citations and references:
Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief and designated academic editors, based on scholarly merit, peer-review evidence, ethical compliance, journal scope, and editorial policy.
The publisher and Editorial Office provide administrative, technical, and production support, but do not interfere in acceptance or rejection decisions.