SAS Publishers Logo

An International Publisher for Academic and Scientific Journals

Review Process

PUBLICATION PROCESS

Publication Process Flowchart

SAS Publishers Peer Review Process

SAS Publishers adheres to a double-blind peer review process to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity and quality. In this process, the identities of both the authors and the editors remain confidential to ensure impartiality and fairness in manuscript evaluation.

The peer review process is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, aimed at validating the research and enhancing the quality of the submitted work. Manuscripts are reviewed by expert peer reviewers who generously volunteer their time and expertise to provide constructive feedback and guidanceβ€”offering authors valuable insights at no cost.

Authors are encouraged to prepare and submit their manuscripts in accordance with the Author Guidelines available at https://saspublishers.com/author-instructions to facilitate a smooth and timely review process.

The typical review timeline ranges from 20 to 25 days, though it may vary depending on factors such as manuscript length, clarity, research design, data quality, and accuracy of references. In cases where revisions are required, the revised manuscript may undergo an additional round of review, potentially extending the overall evaluation period.

All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening using PlagScan. The final publication decision is made by the editorial team, taking into account the reviewers' comments and suggestions.

Review Timeline Overview:

  • Initial Submission: 1 Day - Manuscript submission and initial processing
  • Review Process: 7-10 Days - Comprehensive peer review evaluation
  • Review Reports: 2 Days - Compilation and analysis of reviewer feedback
  • Editorial Decision: 2-3 Days - Final editorial decision and author notification
  • Payment & Publication: Upon acceptance and fee processing

Key Features of Our Review Process:

  • βœ“ Double-blind peer review ensuring unbiased evaluation
  • βœ“ Expert reviewers with relevant field expertise
  • βœ“ Constructive feedback to improve manuscript quality
  • βœ“ Plagiarism detection using advanced screening tools
  • βœ“ Transparent timeline with regular status updates
  • βœ“ Quality assurance at every stage of the process