Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to SPB are peer-reviewed. Each submitted paper will be initially delivered to the SPB's Editor-in-Chief's office, who will screen if the submission fits the scope of the journal and is methodologically sound. Editors-in-Chief decide collectively whether or not it should be sent out for review. Manuscripts that do not fit SPB's scope of interest or the standards of our journal (e.g. data transparency) are rejected before the peer-review. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. Initial screening of the submissions is usually performed within the first ~5 days. 

Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it is assigned for peer-review. The Editor-in-Chief appoints an Action Editor. Action Editor will seek and invite competent reviewers. The final editor decision is made on the basis of at least two reviews. The authors may follow the status of the paper throughout the whole process by logging into the editorial system. The decision (accept, request for minor revision, revise and resubmit (with new rounds of reviews), or decline the submission) will be communicated electronically (within the OJS editorial system and via separate e-mails) together with the reviews and letter from the Action Editor. Usually, the time span from submission to the first editor decision averages between 7-10 weeks. The time to reach a final decision (accept/decline submission) depends on the number of review rounds, authors' responsiveness, etc. Usually, the time span from submission to final decision averages around 5 months. The total turnaround time for publishing a manuscript depends (additionally to the factors mentioned above) on the author's responsiveness, submission date, the journal's publication schedule, authors' adherence to the publication guidelines, etc. Reviewed and accepted submissions are usually published with SPB within 6 months (on average).

We use the double-blind review system, which preserves the identity of both the authors and of the reviewers. To ensure the integrity of the blind peer-review, authors and reviewers should not disclose their identity and follow the precautions listed below when preparing the final version of their files for review/their review: 

  1. The authors should replace their names with "Author" and year used in the main body, references and/or footnotes, instead of the authors' name, article title, etc.
  2. Properties of any files submitted or linked within the submission should be clear of any identifying information.