Peer Review Process

Life Sciences, Technology and Sustainability Education (LSTSE) applies a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure that all published articles meet high standards of academic quality, research integrity, and scientific contribution. Peer review is conducted by independent experts who evaluate submitted manuscripts based on originality, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

The peer review process is designed to provide constructive feedback to authors while assisting editors in making informed publication decisions. LSTSE follows internationally recognized principles of responsible peer review and maintains editorial independence throughout the evaluation process.

1. Manuscript Submission

All manuscripts must be submitted through the official online submission system of LSTSE. Authors are required to provide complete manuscript information, including:

Title and abstract
Keywords
Author information and affiliations
Corresponding author details
Funding information, if applicable
Conflict of interest declaration
Ethical approval statement, when required
Data availability statement, when applicable

Before submission, authors must ensure that manuscripts comply with the journal’s author guidelines, formatting requirements, and publication ethics standards.

Submitted manuscripts must represent original research that has not been published previously and is not under review by another journal. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have approved the submitted version and agreed to the submission.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening conducted by the editorial team. This stage determines whether the manuscript meets the basic requirements for further evaluation.

The editorial screening assesses:

Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
Originality and relevance of the research topic.
Compliance with manuscript structure and formatting requirements.
Completeness of submission documents.
Research ethics compliance.
Potential plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse.

The editorial team may return manuscripts to authors for technical corrections before peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements or fall outside the journal scope may be rejected at this stage.

3. Plagiarism Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening before entering the peer review process.

The screening process aims to identify:

Significant similarity with previously published works.
Unacknowledged use of other authors’ ideas or text.
Duplicate publication.
Improper citation practices.

If substantial similarity or ethical concerns are identified, the editorial team may request clarification from authors or reject the manuscript according to the journal’s research misconduct policy.

4. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

Research expertise related to the manuscript topic.
Academic qualifications and publication experience.
Knowledge of appropriate research methodologies.
Availability and ability to provide an objective evaluation.

LSTSE generally assigns at least two reviewers for each manuscript to obtain balanced and comprehensive evaluations.

The editorial team avoids assigning reviewers who have conflicts of interest with authors, institutions, or research projects associated with the manuscript.

5. Peer Review Model

LSTSE applies a double-anonymized peer review system.

Under this system:

Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

This approach is implemented to support impartial evaluation and reduce potential bias related to author identity, institutional affiliation, geographical location, or academic status.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts independently and provide comments through the journal’s online submission system.

6. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on several academic criteria, including:

Scientific Contribution

Reviewers evaluate whether the manuscript provides:

A clear research contribution.
Original insights or findings.
Meaningful engagement with existing literature.
Appropriate theoretical positioning.

Methodological Quality

Reviewers examine:

Research design suitability.
Data collection procedures.
Analytical approaches.
Validity and reliability of findings.
Ethical considerations.

Results and Discussion

Reviewers assess whether:

Findings are clearly presented.
Analysis is supported by evidence.
Discussion connects findings with previous research.
Conclusions are consistent with research objectives.

Presentation Quality

Reviewers evaluate:

Organization and structure.
Academic writing quality.
Clarity of tables and figures.
Accuracy of references and citations.

7. Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers provide recommendations to the editor.

Possible recommendations include:

Accept
The manuscript meets journal standards and requires no substantial revision.
Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited corrections before acceptance.
Major Revision
The manuscript requires substantial improvement in theoretical, methodological, analytical, or presentation aspects.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the required academic standards or does not sufficiently align with the journal scope.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor.

8. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

Revised manuscript.
Response letter addressing reviewer comments.
Explanation of changes made.

Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments clearly and provide justification when suggestions are not implemented.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when editors consider additional assessment necessary.

9. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the editorial team based on:

Reviewer reports.
Author responses.
Manuscript quality.
Compliance with ethical standards.
Contribution to the journal scope.

The editorial team may decide to:

Accept the manuscript for publication.
Request additional revision.
Reject the manuscript.

All editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by commercial interests, institutional affiliations, or personal considerations.

10. Publication Process

After acceptance, manuscripts proceed to the production stage, including:

Copyediting.
Layout preparation.
Author proofreading.
Metadata verification.
DOI registration.
Online publication.

Before final publication, authors are given the opportunity to review the final version to ensure accuracy of content, author information, and publication details.

Review Timeline

LSTSE aims to maintain an efficient review process while ensuring academic quality.

The approximate workflow is:

Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
Peer review process: 4–8 weeks
Revision period: 2–4 weeks depending on revision level
Final decision and production: 2–4 weeks after acceptance

The timeline may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and author response time.

Commitment to Research Integrity

LSTSE is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer review system. The journal continuously improves its editorial procedures to support responsible scholarly publishing and ensure that published articles contribute reliably to international academic knowledge.

The peer review process follows internationally accepted publication ethics principles, including guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)