At OPAST Publishing Group, we uphold the highest standards of scholarly integrity, aiming to ensure that each article published in our journals meets rigorous academic and ethical standards. To achieve this, we follow a double-blind peer review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review. This method promotes impartiality and ensures that only the quality and scientific merit of the work are taken into consideration.

 

1. Initial Submission and Screening

Once an author submits their manuscript to one of our journals, the editorial team performs an initial assessment. This screening process evaluates whether the submission adheres to the journal’s focus, scope, and formatting requirements. At this stage, we also verify that the manuscript aligns with ethical guidelines and is free from plagiarism or other issues.

If the manuscript passes this initial screening, it is sent to a suitable expert in the field for peer review. If not, the manuscript may be returned to the author for revisions or, in some cases, rejected at this stage.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

At OPAST Publishing Group, we follow a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

? Reviewer Selection: Our editorial team selects independent, qualified experts in the subject matter of the manuscript. These reviewers are typically researchers, academics, or practitioners with deep knowledge of the topic, ensuring that the manuscript undergoes a rigorous evaluation.

? Review Process: The reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on several key criteria, including:

• Originality and Significance: Does the manuscript present novel research? Is it significant to the field of study?
• Scientific Quality: Is the research methodology sound? Are the results and conclusions well-supported by the data?
• Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured?
• Ethical Considerations: Does the manuscript meet ethical standards regarding data collection, analysis, and reporting?

Reviewers provide constructive feedback, which can include suggestions for revisions, clarification, or additional analysis, helping authors improve the quality and clarity of their work.

3. Decision Making

After receiving feedback from the reviewers, the editorial team carefully considers their recommendations and makes a decision on the manuscript. There are typically three possible outcomes at this stage:

• Accept: If the manuscript meets the journal's standards and the reviewers' feedback is favorable, the article is accepted for publication.
• Minor Revisions: If the manuscript is generally solid but requires minor improvements, the author is asked to revise the manuscript and resubmit it for a final review.
• Major Revisions: If the manuscript has potential but needs significant improvements, the author is encouraged to revise and resubmit the manuscript. The reviewers will provide detailed suggestions on areas for improvement, and the manuscript will go through another round of review.
• Reject: If the manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or the reviewers’ feedback is overwhelmingly negative, it may be rejected.

4. Post-Review Process

Once a decision has been made, the editorial team informs the authors of the outcome, along with the reviewers' feedback. Authors are expected to address all reviewer comments, either by making revisions to the manuscript or by providing a detailed explanation if they choose not to incorporate a suggestion.

If revisions are required, the manuscript is sent back to the authors, who are expected to make the necessary adjustments and resubmit it for further review. This cycle continues until the manuscript is deemed ready for publication.

5. Publication

After the manuscript is accepted, it undergoes final formatting and quality checks before being published online. As an open-access publisher, all articles are made freely available to readers worldwide. We aim to ensure that each published article is easily accessible and contributes meaningfully to the global body of academic knowledge.

6. Transparency and Integrity

We are committed to maintaining transparency and integrity in the review process. Our double- blind system ensures that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and without bias. Additionally, our reviewers are encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality.

If authors or reviewers have concerns about the review process, they can contact the editorial team directly. We are dedicated to addressing any issues to maintain the quality and fairness of the process.

7. How to Become a Reviewer

At OPAST Publishing Group, we welcome scholars, experts, and professionals interested in becoming part of our reviewer pool. If you are interested in contributing to the peer review process, please contact the editorial team, providing your areas of expertise and a brief summary of your qualifications. We carefully select reviewers based on their subject matter expertise and ability to provide thorough and constructive feedback.