Manuscript Processing and Editorial Workflow

MSAR Journals is committed to a transparent, responsible, and academically rigorous publishing process, supporting fair editorial assessment, independent peer review where applicable, research integrity, and clear communication with authors.

Our Editorial Approach

MSAR Journals follows a structured editorial process designed to assess the suitability, quality, originality, scientific validity, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. The process may vary according to the journal, article type, subject area, and applicable editorial policies.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with applicable ethical and reporting requirements. Submission does not guarantee peer review, acceptance, publication, or assignment of a DOI.

Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

Each submission is handled in accordance with the relevant journal's editorial policies and review model. Where external peer review is required, manuscripts are evaluated by suitably qualified reviewers selected for their subject expertise and, where practicable, independence from the authors.

The applicable review model, including whether reviewer and author identities are disclosed or concealed, is determined by the individual journal. Reviewers and editors are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare relevant conflicts of interest, and provide objective assessments based on the manuscript's scholarly merits.

Authors submit their manuscripts through the relevant journal's online submission system and provide the information and files requested during submission. Depending on the article type and journal requirements, this may include the main manuscript, title page, figures, tables, supplementary materials, cover letter, and required declarations.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that author details, affiliations, corresponding-author information, funding disclosures, competing-interest statements, ethics information, and other required metadata are accurate and complete.

The editorial office checks whether the submission is complete and prepared in accordance with the journal's author instructions. Checks may cover file accessibility, manuscript structure, required declarations, reference formatting, figure quality, reporting requirements, and the presence of relevant supporting documents.

Submissions with missing information, incomplete files, or correctable technical issues may be returned to authors for completion. Potential ethical or integrity concerns may be referred for further assessment under the applicable policies.

An Editor-in-Chief, handling editor, or other authorized editorial representative assesses the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, originality, potential contribution, methodological appropriateness, presentation, and compliance with relevant ethical requirements.

Depending on the outcome, the manuscript may proceed to peer review, be returned for clarification or correction, be redirected where an appropriate alternative exists, or be declined without external review. An initial editorial assessment does not imply likely acceptance.

Where peer review is required, the responsible editor identifies and invites reviewers with relevant subject knowledge and appropriate expertise. Reviewer selection takes account of the manuscript's topic, potential conflicts of interest, and the need for independent scholarly assessment. The number of reviewers and review arrangements follow the applicable journal policy and article type.

Reviewers assess the manuscript in accordance with the journal's review criteria. Depending on the study and article type, their assessment may address the research question, originality, study design, methods, statistical analysis, interpretation of findings, limitations, reporting quality, references, ethical safeguards, and clarity of presentation.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not replace the editor's independent judgment. Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection, or provide another recommendation consistent with the journal's procedures.

After considering the available reviews and editorial assessment, the responsible editor communicates a decision to the corresponding author. Possible outcomes include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, further assessment, or rejection. The decision notice may include reviewer comments, editorial guidance, and instructions for any required next steps.

Where revisions are invited, authors should address the editorial and reviewer comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript together with a clear, point-by-point response. Any changes to authorship or other submission details must be disclosed and handled in accordance with the journal's policies.

Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the handling editor or returned to reviewers when further independent evaluation is appropriate. Submission of a revision does not guarantee acceptance.

A final decision is made by the authorized editor after considering the manuscript, reviewer feedback where applicable, responses to requested revisions, and relevant journal requirements. Acceptance is conditional on the journal's editorial and publication standards being met. Authors may use the journal's established appeal procedure to challenge a decision on appropriate, evidence-based grounds.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production processes used by the relevant journal. These may include copyediting, reference and metadata checks, layout or typesetting, preparation of publication files, and author review of proofs where provided.

Before publication, authors should review proofs carefully and report any errors through the designated channel. Articles are published according to the journal's publication model, licensing terms, and production procedures. DOI assignment and deposit depend on the journal's arrangements and the availability of an appropriate DOI registration service.

Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

Authors, editors, reviewers, and other contributors are expected to act honestly, transparently, and responsibly throughout the publication process. Relevant concerns may include plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, authorship disputes, and failures to obtain required ethical approval or consent.

Where concerns arise, the journal may request clarification or supporting documentation, pause processing, consult appropriate institutional or editorial authorities, or take other proportionate action under its applicable policies. Matters are assessed with due regard to confidentiality, fairness, and the information available.

Confidentiality and Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and related editorial communications as confidential and must not disclose or use unpublished material for personal advantage. They should inform the editor of any circumstances that could affect their impartiality.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content to generative AI systems or other third-party services unless expressly permitted under the relevant journal's policy and appropriate confidentiality safeguards. Any permitted use of AI must comply with applicable journal instructions, privacy obligations, and disclosure requirements.

Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw from decisions where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit and the journal's published criteria, not on personal relationships, institutional influence, commercial interests, or other inappropriate considerations.

When a manuscript involves an editor, editorial board member, reviewer, or another person with a relevant conflict, the journal should arrange independent handling by an appropriately qualified editor without that conflict. The conflicted person must not influence the review or decision.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should submit a reasoned written explanation identifying the specific grounds for the appeal and providing relevant supporting information. Appeals are not intended simply to repeat disagreement with an editorial judgment.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, review procedures, publication ethics, or journal administration should be directed to the appropriate editorial or publishing contact. Appeals and complaints should be assessed fairly and, where necessary, by a person who was not involved in the matter under consideration.

Author Responsibilities

• Submit original work and disclose any relevant prior publication or concurrent submission.
• Ensure that all listed authors meet appropriate authorship criteria and approve the submitted version.
• Provide accurate information on research ethics, informed consent, funding, competing interests, and data availability, as applicable.
• Obtain permission to reproduce third-party material where required.
• Respond constructively to editorial and reviewer comments and provide accurate revisions.
• Notify the editorial office promptly if a significant error or concern is identified after publication.

A Transparent and Responsible Publishing Process

MSAR Journals aims to support trustworthy scholarly communication through responsible editorial handling, appropriate peer review, research integrity, and clear publication policies. Authors should consult the specific journal's website for its scope, review model, author instructions, licensing terms, and applicable policies.