Peer Review
Throughout the entire process, from submission to the final verdict or publication, a specific member of the CrossLink Studies team oversees the review workflow, acting as the primary liaison for authors, scholarly editors, and reviewers.
For a majority of the journals, the review is conducted in a single-blind manner, which means reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but not vice versa. However, certain CrossLink Studies journals employ a double-blind review approach, concealing the identities of both parties from each other. The peer review protocol for conference journals, detailed at CrossLink Studies Conference Proceedings, is distinctly set by the organizing committee, tailored to meet the specific requirements of each conference.
A minimum of two evaluations are sought for each manuscript submitted. During the initial check, academic editors have the option to recommend potential reviewers. Alternatively, the CrossLink Studies editorial team selects appropriate reviewers from its Editorial Board, our reviewer database, or through identifying new reviewers by searching for related articles online.
Authors are invited to suggest suitable reviewers and may also request the exclusion of certain reviewers to avoid potential biases. These preferences are accommodated by the Editorial Team provided they do not compromise the submission's impartial and comprehensive evaluation.
Reviewers are expected to meet the following criteria:
- Avoid any conflicts of interest with the authors.
- Not be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors.
- Have not collaborated on publications with any of the authors within the past three years.
- Possess a PhD or MD degree, relevant to medical journals.
- Demonstrate substantial experience and a strong publication record in the relevant field (verified through Scopus or ORCID).
- Be recognized as an experienced scholar in the manuscript's subject area.
- Be affiliated with a recognized academic institution.
Selected reviewers are tasked with:
- Assessing the quality of the manuscript with the necessary expertise.
- Providing detailed and timely feedback while remaining engaged during the review.
- Upholding professional and ethical standards.
Reviewers are given a timeframe of 10-14 days to complete their reviews through the online platform CrossLink Studies Review Platform, with extensions available upon request. For revised manuscripts, a report is expected within five days, with the possibility of extensions.
CrossLink Studies staff facilitate all interactions with reviewers, authors, and the external editor to support academic editors, who can monitor the review status and reviewer identities at any point and discuss any aspect of the manuscript review with the CrossLink Studies team as needed.