Review Process

Signed in as:

filler@godaddy.com

Account

A New Platform for Research & Advancements in Hyperbaric medicine

Manuscript Review Process

The acceptance and publication of submitted manuscripts are at the sole discretion of the publisher and editorial board. All submissions undergo a rigorous review process to ensure they align with the journal's scope, editorial standards, and scientific integrity. While adherence to the outlined criteria is essential, the final decision regarding publication rests with the editorial team, which reserves the right to accept, reject or request revisions as deemed necessary.

Overview of the peer-review process

Manuscript Submission - Author submits the manuscript to the journal through Manuscript Manager.
Initial Editorial Assessment - The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript for basic quality, relevance and adherence to submission guidelines.
Start of the Review Process - If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, it will be assigned to a managing editor to oversee the process.
Reviewer Selection & Assignment - Each manuscript will be reviewed in a double-blind process by 3-5 subject matter experts.
Peer Review Process - Reviewers will evaluate the manuscript and provide feedback, and recommend if it should be accepted, revised or rejected.
Review Compilation - The reviews are compiled and the editorial board will make a decision on if the manuscript will be accepted for publication.
Decision Communication - The Editor-in-Chief will communicate the decision to the corresponding author.
Revised Submission - If revisions are required, the author must address reviewers comments and re-submit the manuscript. It may be sent through a second review process.
Final Decision - After considering the manuscript, any revisions or additional reviews, the Editor-in-Chief will make a final decision.
Online & Print Publication - Once accepted, the manuscript goes through typesetting before being published in it’s final format.

Guidelines for Manuscript Acceptance

Originality and Novelty: The research presents new and original findings that contribute significantly to the field.
Scientific Rigor and Validity: The study is methodologically sound, and the conclusions are supported by the data.
Clarity and Quality of Writing: The manuscript is well-written, clear, and logically structured.
Relevance: The topic is relevant to the journal’s scope and audience.
Ethical Standards: The research adheres to ethical guidelines, including proper treatment of human or animal subjects.
Comprehensive Review of Literature: The manuscript includes a thorough and up-to-date review of the relevant literature.
Statistical Analysis: Appropriate and rigorous statistical analyses have been conducted.
Replicability: The study provides enough detail for others to replicate the research.
Significance of Results: The findings have a significant impact on the field and advance understanding or knowledge.

Guidelines for Manuscript Revision

Minor Revisions: Small changes needed, such as clarifications, additional references or minor mythological adjustments.
Major Revisions: Significant changes required, such as substantial rewriting, additional experiments, or major methodological improvements.
Addressing Reviewer Comments: Authors must address specific concerns and suggestions raised by reviewers
Improving Statistical Analysis: Authors may need to reanalyze data or provide additional statistical information.
Ethical Clarifications: Authors may need to provide additional details on ethical approvals or procedures.
Enhancing Clarity and Quality: Authors may need to improve the clarity, organization, and overall quality of writing.

Guidelines for Manuscript Rejection

Lack of Novelty: The research does not offer new insights or findings.
Poor Methodology: The study design is flawed, or the methods are not appropriate or well-executed.
Inadequate Data: The data is insufficient or does not support the conclusions drawn.
Ethical Concerns: There are ethical issues or violations in the research.
Out of Scope: The topic is not relevant to the journal’s focus or audience.
Insufficient Literature Review: The manuscript fails to adequately review relevant prior research.
Statistical Weakness: Statistical analyses are inappropriate, incorrect or poorly executed.
Lack of Clarity: The manuscript is poorly written, unclear or disorganized.
Reproducibility Issues: The study lacks sufficient detail to allow replication.
Insignificant Results: The findings do not make a substantial contribution to the field.

Appeals Process Policy & guidelines

We value the integrity and transparency of the peer-review process. If an author who has submitted a manuscript believes that the decision to reject the manuscript warrants further consideration and review, authors may submit a formal appeal.

The editorial team of Therapeutic Sciences: Emerging Research in Medical Gases and Regenerative Biology is committed to maintaining the highest standards of fairness and rigor in the peer-review process. We recognize that authors may sometimes disagree with editorial decisions. In such cases, our appeals process provides a mechanism for authors to request reconsideration of their manuscript.

We encourage authors to carefully review the reviewers' comments and editorial feedback before submitting an appeal. Appeals should be focused, evidence-based and constructive to facilitate a thorough and fair reassessment.

Note: Submitting an appeal does not guarantee acceptance of your manuscript. The decision will be based solely on the merits of the appeal and the quality of the manuscript.

Submission of an Appeal for a manuscript

1. Submit a Letter of Appeal

Clearly articulate the grounds for your appeal.
Address specific points raised in the reviewers' comments or editorial decision letter.
Provide detailed responses and supporting evidence where applicable.

2. Timeframe: Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of the decision notification.

3. Formatting: Submit your appeal as a PDF document via the journal's manuscript submission system under the category “Appeals.”

4. Additional Evidence: Include any new data or clarification relevant to your manuscript that was not previously submitted.

Appeal Review Process

The Editor-in-Chief or designated appeals editor will perform an initial review to determine if the appeal meets the criteria for consideration.
If deemed appropriate, the appeal will be reviewed by an independent panel of experts who were not involved in the initial review process.
The decision of the appeals panel is final and will be communicated to the author within 60 days.

Note: Submitting an appeal does not guarantee acceptance of your manuscript. The decision will be based solely on the merits of the appeal and the quality of the manuscript.