Peer Review Process

Double-Anonymized Standard 5 Consortium Journals • COPE Compliant
Turnaround: 4–6 Wks First Decision

Peer Review Workflow & Evaluation Model

The Deep Science and Technology Consortium (DSTC) operates a rigorous Double-Anonymized (Double-Blind) Peer Review workflow across all 5 consortium journals. Both author and reviewer identities remain strictly concealed throughout the evaluation cycle to eliminate geographical, gender, institutional, and seniority biases.

6-Stage Editorial Workflow Timeline

1

Submission & Triage

Timeline: 1–3 Days

Technical formatting check, Crossref/iThenticate plagiarism screening (< 15% similarity threshold), and initial scope assessment by Editorial Office.

2

Editor Assignment

Timeline: 3–5 Days

Assigned domain Section Editor reviews manuscript relevance and recruits at least 2 independent external reviewers without conflicts of interest.

3

Double-Blind Review

Timeline: 2–4 Weeks

Reviewers evaluate methodology, novelty, validity, and impact using structured rubrics with author identities completely anonymized.

4

Editorial Decision

Decision: Accept / Revise / Reject

Section Editor and Academic Chair synthesize reports and issue an official decision notice with comprehensive reviewer feedback.

5

Author Revision

Timeline: 2–4 Weeks

Authors provide point-by-point response and revised manuscript. Major revisions undergo secondary round evaluation by original reviewers.

6

Immediate Publication

$0 Free Diamond Open Access

Professional XML/HTML typesetting, author galley proofing, Crossref DOI registration, and immediate CC-BY 4.0 release online.

Reviewer Evaluation Rubric & Criteria

Evaluation Dimension Assessment Criteria Weight
1. Originality & Novelty Does the manuscript present new empirical evidence, novel theoretical models, or significant advancements over existing literature? 25%
2. Methodological Rigor Are research designs, algorithms, statistical analyses, and experimental procedures reproducible and scientifically sound? 25%
3. Scientific Impact & Scope Does the contribution have meaningful theoretical or applied implications for deep science and emerging technology? 20%
4. Presentation & Clarity Is the paper clearly structured (IMRaD), grammatically proficient, with well-rendered equations and figures? 15%
5. Literature & Referencing Are relevant recent publications appropriately cited in Roman script with complete bibliographic details and DOIs? 15%

Conflict of Interest & Ethical Safeguards

  • Reviewers who have co-authored papers with authors in the preceding 36 months, share institutional affiliations, or possess commercial competing interests are strictly disqualified.
  • All review reports and editorial communications are archived permanently within PKP OJS to maintain a transparent, unbroken audit trail.