Peer Review Policy

 

SCHOLAR – Scientific & Cultural Hub for Objective Learning and Research is committed to ensuring the quality, integrity, and scholarly rigor of all published content through a transparent and fair blind peer review process.

Review Model

SCHOLAR employs a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This model is used to promote impartial evaluation and reduce potential bias.

Reviewers

Manuscripts are reviewed by independent experts with relevant academic or professional expertise in the subject area of the submission. Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on their qualifications, research experience, and familiarity with the manuscript’s discipline or interdisciplinary focus.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions objectively, provide constructive and evidence-based feedback, and adhere to confidentiality and ethical review standards.

Review Process

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess suitability for the journal’s scope and compliance with basic submission and ethical requirements. Submissions that pass this stage are sent to reviewers for double-blind peer review.

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to established scholarly criteria, including originality, methodological or conceptual rigor, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the field.

Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are made by the handling editor based on:

  • The content and quality of the manuscript

  • The reviewers’ reports and recommendations

  • The journal’s scope, standards, and ethical policies

While reviewer feedback plays a critical advisory role, final publication decisions rest with the editors. Editors may accept a manuscript, request revisions, or reject a submission based on an independent academic assessment.

In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, the editor may seek additional reviews or exercise editorial judgment to reach a reasoned decision.

 

Roles and Responsibilities

  • Reviewers provide scholarly evaluations and recommendations but do not make final publication decisions.

  • Editors oversee the peer review process, ensure fairness and consistency, evaluate reviewer input, and make final decisions regarding publication.

  • The Editor-in-Chief holds overall responsibility for editorial oversight and final decisions in accordance with journal policies.

 

Confidentiality and Integrity

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential. SCHOLAR follows recognized ethical standards to maintain integrity, transparency, and accountability throughout the peer review process.

 

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

SCHOLAR – Scientific & Cultural Hub for Objective Learning and Research is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures to prevent publication malpractice. The journal adheres to internationally recognized ethical guidelines to ensure the integrity, credibility, and reliability of the scholarly record.

 

Ethical Framework 

SCHOLAR follows the principles and best practices outlined by the research Committee. All parties involved in the publishing process—authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher—are expected to adhere to SCHOLAR’s core practices regarding integrity, transparency, fairness, and accountability.

Ethical oversight applies to all stages of the editorial and publication process.

 

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting to SCHOLAR must ensure that:

  • Submitted work is original, unpublished, and not under consideration elsewhere

  • All sources are properly cited and referenced

  • Data, results, and methodologies are reported accurately and honestly

  • Authorship reflects substantial scholarly contribution

  • Any conflicts of interest are clearly disclosed

  • Research involving humans, animals, or sensitive data complies with applicable ethical and legal standards




  • Plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, redundant publication, and unethical research practices are strictly prohibited.

 

Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • Making editorial decisions based solely on academic merit, rigor, relevance, and originality

  • Ensuring a fair, unbiased, and confidential peer review process

  • Maintaining editorial independence from commercial or institutional influence

  • Addressing ethical concerns and allegations of misconduct in accordance with SCHOLAR guidelines

  • Taking appropriate action when ethical breaches are identified

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Conduct reviews objectively, constructively, and within agreed timelines

  • Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscripts

  • Declare any conflicts of interest

  • Identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism or data manipulation

Handling of Research Misconduct

SCHOLAR takes allegations of misconduct seriously. Suspected cases of:

  • Plagiarism

  • Fabrication or falsification of data

  • Duplicate or redundant publication

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

  • Ethical violations in research conduct

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

To preserve the integrity of the scholarly record:

  • Corrections are issued for honest errors that do not invalidate the findings

  • Retractions are published when results are unreliable due to misconduct or serious error

  • Expressions of Concern may be issued when investigations are ongoing or inconclusive

All such notices are clearly identified, publicly accessible, and permanently linked to the original article.

 

Editorial Independence and Transparency

Editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher or any sponsoring organization. The journal maintains transparency in its editorial processes, peer review policies, and ethical standards.

 

Continuous Ethical Oversight

Publication ethics policies are reviewed periodically to ensure continued alignment with SCHOLAR standards and policies and evolving best practices in scholarly publishing.

 

Conflict of Interest Policy

SCHOLAR – Scientific & Cultural Hub for Objective Learning and Research is committed to ensuring transparency, integrity, and objectivity in all aspects of the editorial and publication process. Conflicts of interest (COIs) must be disclosed and managed appropriately to maintain trust in the scholarly record.

A conflict of interest exists when personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships could influence—or be perceived to influence—the evaluation, review, or publication of scholarly work.

 

Conflicts of Interest: Authors

Authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the interpretation or presentation of their work, including but not limited to:

  • Financial interests (grants, employment, consultancies, honoraria, patents)

  • Personal or professional relationships

  • Institutional affiliations or funding sources

  • Academic or ideological commitments relevant to the manuscript

All disclosed conflicts must be stated clearly at the time of submission. If no conflicts exist, authors must explicitly declare “No conflicts of interest.”

Failure to disclose relevant conflicts may result in rejection, correction, or retraction of the published article.

 

Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity, including:

  • Recent collaboration or joint publications with the author(s)

  • Institutional affiliation with the author(s)

  • Personal, financial, or professional relationships

  • Competitive or adversarial academic interests

 

Reviewers with conflicts must decline the review invitation. If a conflict is identified after accepting a review, the reviewer must immediately inform the editorial office.

 

Conflicts of Interest: Editors

Editors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest related to manuscripts under their consideration, including:

  • Authorship or collaboration with submitting authors

  • Institutional or financial relationships

  • Personal or professional relationships that could affect editorial judgment

Editors must not participate in editorial decisions where a conflict exists.

 

Editorial Recusal Procedures

To preserve editorial independence and fairness:

  • Editors with conflicts of interest are recused from handling the affected manuscript

  • The manuscript is reassigned to an unconflicted editor or associate editor

  • Recusal decisions are documented internally by the editorial office

  • The Editor-in-Chief ensures that recusal procedures are applied consistently

Recusal applies equally to submissions authored by editorial board members, institutional colleagues, or close collaborators.

 

Transparency and Accountability

All disclosed conflicts of interest are managed in accordance with best practices in scholarly publishing and aligned withSCGOLAR ethical standards. The journal reserves the right to request additional disclosures or clarifications when necessary.

 

Plagiarism Policy

SCHOLAR – Scientific & Cultural Hub for Objective Learning and Research is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity. All submitted and published content must be original, properly cited, and free from unethical publication practices.

 

This policy outlines how plagiarism is screened, assessed, and addressed at both pre-publication and post-publication stages.




Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

  • Direct copying without proper attribution

  • Inadequate paraphrasing of others’ work

  • Self-plagiarism or redundant publication without disclosure

  • Use of ideas, data, images, or text without appropriate citation

Plagiarism Screening Method

  • All submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software prior to peer review.

  • Screening is conducted by the editorial office or handling editor as part of the initial editorial assessment.

  • Reports are reviewed qualitatively; similarity scores are not evaluated in isolation.

Similarity Thresholds & Handling

SCHOLAR does not rely on a fixed numerical similarity threshold. Instead:

  • Low similarity with proper citation → Proceed to review

  • Moderate similarity (e.g., methodological overlap, common terminology) → Editorial assessment and author clarification if needed

  • High similarity or evidence of unattributed copying → Manuscript is rejected or returned for correction

Editors assess:

  • Location and nature of overlap

  • Presence or absence of citation

  • Context and academic acceptability

 

Pre-Publication Actions

If plagiarism is identified before publication:

  1. Minor Issues

    • Authors are notified and required to revise the manuscript.

  2. Serious or Systematic Plagiarism

    • Manuscript is rejected.

    • Authors may be barred from submission for a defined period.




  1. Undisclosed Redundant Publication

    • Manuscript is rejected and previous publications may be reviewed.

All actions are documented internally.

 

Post-Publication Actions

If plagiarism is discovered after publication:

  1. Investigation

    • The Editor-in-Chief initiates a formal review in accordance with SCHOLAR guidance.

  2. Author Notification

    • Authors are contacted and given an opportunity to respond.

  3. Corrective Measures
    Depending on severity, SCHOLAR may issue:

    • A correction

    • An expression of concern

    • A retraction

Retractions are clearly labeled and linked to the original article.

 

Editorial Responsibility

  • Editors ensure consistent application of this policy.

  • Reviewers are encouraged to report suspected plagiarism.

  • Final determinations rest with the Editor-in-Chief.

Ethical Alignment

This policy adheres to:

  • International standards of publication ethics

  • DOAJ transparency and integrity requirements