Peer Review Process

Peer-Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Civitas undergo a rigorous screening and review process to ensure that they fit into the journal's scope and are of sufficient academic quality and novelty to appeal to Civitas readership. Civitas employs a double-blind peer review, in which both author(s) and reviewers’ identities are concealed from each other.

Initial Screening

A newly submitted manuscript will be screened by the Editor-in-Chief for its conformity to Civitas scope and basic submission requirements.

Peer-Review

If the manuscript passes the initial screening stage, it will be assigned to a handling editor, who will then send it to at least two experts in the relevant field to undergo a double-blind peer-review. Manuscripts that fail to pass the initial screening will be rejected without further review.

First Decision

A decision on a peer-reviewed manuscript will only be made upon the receipt of at least two review reports. In cases where reports differ significantly, the handling editor will invite an additional reviewer to get a third opinion before making a decision. At this stage, a manuscript can either be rejected, asked for revisions (minor or major), accepted as is, or (if significant changes to the language or content are required) recommended for resubmission for a second review process. If it is accepted, the manuscript will be returned to the submitting author for formatting. The final decision to accept the manuscript will be made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the recommendation of the handling editor and following approval by the board of editors.

Revision Stage

A manuscript that requires revisions will be returned to the submitting author, who will have up to three weeks to format and revise the manuscript, following which it will be reviewed by the handling editor. The handling editor will determine whether the changes are adequate and appropriate, as well as whether the author(s) sufficiently responded to the reviewers' comments and suggestions. If the revisions are deemed to be inadequate, this cycle will be repeated (the manuscript will be returned to the submitting author once more for further revision).

Final Decision

At this stage, the revised manuscript will either be accepted or rejected. This decision is dependent on whether the handling editor finds the manuscript to have been improved to a level worthy of publication. If the author(s) are unable to make the required changes or have done so to a degree below Civitas standards, the manuscript will be rejected.

 

Additional Details on the Review Process

The following information supplements the review process at Civitas without altering the previously outlined stages. Civitas upholds transparency and thoroughness to ensure the quality and credibility of published articles.

Submission and Initial Evaluation

All submitted manuscripts are assigned a unique identification number upon meeting the scope and basic requirements of Civitas. The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to verify the manuscript's relevance to the journal’s focus and compliance with writing guidelines.

Double-Blind Review

To maintain objectivity and fairness, Civitas implements a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. This approach minimizes bias and ensures that evaluations are based solely on scientific quality.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Scientific rigor and methodological soundness
  • Originality and novelty
  • Relevance to Civitas
  • Clarity of presentation and argumentation
  • Compliance with publication ethics

Reviewers are also encouraged to provide constructive feedback and recommendations for improvement to help authors enhance their manuscripts.

Review Duration

Civitas strives to ensure an efficient and timely review process. Reviewers are assigned a specific timeframe to complete their evaluations. Authors are informed about the estimated duration of the review process at both the initial submission stage and when substantial revisions are required.

Decision and Revision

Upon completion of the review process, the editorial team considers reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Authors receive one of the following decisions:

  • Acceptance – The manuscript is approved for publication.
  • Minor or Major Revision – The manuscript requires modifications before reconsideration.
  • Rejection – The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or scope.

For revisions, authors must carefully address each reviewer’s comments and submit a revised version within the specified deadline.

Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editorial Board member. The decision is based on:

  • Reviewers’ evaluations
  • Research originality
  • Relevance to the journal’s focus
  • Compliance with ethical publishing standards

Confidentiality

Civitas ensures confidentiality in the review process. Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts and their contents as confidential documents and are strictly prohibited from sharing information with unauthorized parties.

Review Process Improvement

Civitas continuously seeks to enhance its review process. Feedback from authors and reviewers is highly valued to improve efficiency and fairness in peer review. We welcome constructive suggestions to strengthen the quality and effectiveness of our evaluation system.

Contact

For inquiries or further details regarding the review process at Civitas, please contact the editorial team via the official journal email address journal@idscipub.com .