Peer Review Statement

Smart Design Policies is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic publishing. Our peer review process is rigorous, transparent, and guided by strong ethical principles to ensure the scholarly quality, credibility, and integrity of all published work. This statement outlines the procedures, roles, and ethical responsibilities that underpin our peer review system.

Type of Peer Review – Double-Blind

All research submissions undergo an external double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed. This process reduces the risk of bias, supports impartial judgement, and encourages fair and objective evaluation.

Peer Review Process

  1. Submission – Authors submit manuscripts through our online system. The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) conducts an initial assessment to confirm suitability.
  2. Initial Screening – Manuscripts deemed relevant and meeting baseline quality standards are assigned to a Section Editor (SE) via the Editorial Office. Submissions clearly out of scope or failing to meet essential quality requirements are declined at this stage.
  3. Reviewer Invitation –
    • The SE selects a minimum of two qualified external reviewers based on subject knowledge, methodological expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest.
    • Reviewers must agree to abide by the Smart Design Policies Reviewers’ Code of Conduct before accepting.
  4. Review –
    • Reviewers independently assess the manuscript, offering constructive and detailed feedback.
    • Additional reviewers may be engaged if specialist input is required.
  5. Editorial Decision – The EiC considers reviewer reports and the SE’s recommendations to determine one of the following outcomes:
    • Accept – The manuscript proceeds to production and an acceptance letter is issued.
    • Minor/Major Revisions – Authors receive compiled feedback and a set deadline (normally eight weeks) for resubmission.
    • Resubmit for Fresh Review – Significant changes are requested and the revised paper undergoes a new review cycle.
    • Reject – A detailed explanation is provided and the manuscript is archived.
  6. Conflict Resolution – Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the EiC may seek an additional review or consult the Editorial Board to reach a fair decision.
  7. Copy-editing – Accepted manuscripts are edited for grammar, style, British English spelling, and compliance with journal referencing guidelines.
  8. Layout & Typesetting – The Layout Editor prepares final formats (PDF/HTML) and applies persistent identifiers (e.g., DOI, ORCID).
  9. Proofreading – Authors review page proofs for final accuracy. Only typographical or production errors may be corrected at this stage.
  10. Publication – Articles are published Online First, indexed, and assigned to the relevant volume and issue.

Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected for their expertise, methodological skills, and professional integrity. They are expected to:

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest;
  • Complete reviews promptly and maintain strict confidentiality;
  • Provide balanced, evidence-based feedback with clear recommendations;
  • Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical breaches to the SE.

Reviewers who consistently fail to meet these obligations may be removed from the reviewer database.

Review Timeline

The standard review period is eight weeks from the date of reviewer invitation to the initial editorial decision. Reviewers should notify the SE immediately if delays are unavoidable.

Revision and Resubmission

Authors normally have 8–12 weeks to address reviewer feedback. Resubmissions must include:

  • A point-by-point response letter explaining how each comment was addressed or why it was not adopted;
  • A tracked-changes version of the revised manuscript.

Depending on the extent of changes, the SE may return the manuscript to the original reviewers or appoint new reviewers for confirmation of revisions.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and reviewer reports are strictly confidential. They must not be shared, cited, or used for personal benefit. Breaches of confidentiality will be investigated and may result in sanctions.

Ethical Framework

Smart Design Policies adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). All parties involved in the publication process must uphold:

  • Integrity of the scholarly record;
  • Transparency in disclosing competing interests;
  • Respect for intellectual property rights;
  • Compliance with recognised research ethics (e.g., human subjects, data protection).

Allegations of misconduct—including plagiarism, redundant publication, data falsification, or undeclared conflicts—will be handled in line with COPE guidance and may result in rejection, retraction, or notification to relevant institutions.

Right to Appeal

Authors may appeal editorial decisions within 30 days of notification by submitting a reasoned request to the EiC. Appeals are reviewed by an independent Editorial Board member, whose decision is final.

Post-Publication Matters

The journal encourages post-publication discussion and will issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when appropriate. All actions follow COPE procedures to ensure transparency and protect the integrity of the academic record.

 

Effective Date: 11 July 2025

Approved by: Editorial Board, Smart Design Policies

This statement is reviewed annually to ensure alignment with evolving best practices in academic publishing.