The editorial process at Archives des Sciences: A Multidisciplinary Journal follows a single-blind peer-review system designed to ensure rigorous scholarly evaluation, editorial independence, confidentiality, and fairness throughout the publication process. Under this model, reviewers are provided with the identities of the authors, while the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Submission: Manuscripts should be submitted through the journal’s online submission system, Open Journal System (OJS). The online system provides a structured and traceable record of manuscript submission, editorial assessment, peer review, revision, and decision. Authors experiencing technical difficulties with the submission system may contact the Editorial Office for assistance.
Initial Assessment: Following submission, the Editorial Office conducts a preliminary screening to determine whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s submission requirements, editorial policies, ethical standards, formatting requirements, and stated aims and scope. Submissions that are incomplete, clearly outside the journal’s scope, or inconsistent with fundamental publication requirements may be returned to the authors or declined without external review.
Editor Assignment: Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial assessment are assigned to an Associate Editor or another suitably qualified academic editor with expertise relevant to the subject of the submission. The assigned editor oversees the academic evaluation and peer-review process while maintaining editorial independence and confidentiality.
Pre-Review Evaluation: The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript for academic relevance, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, scholarly contribution, and suitability for external peer review. A manuscript may be declined at this stage if it does not meet the journal’s minimum scholarly or editorial standards.
Peer Review: Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are sent to independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic knowledge, experience, and absence of conflicts of interest. They are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, validity of analysis, quality of evidence, interpretation of findings, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the field.
Reviewer Recommendations: Following their evaluation, reviewers normally provide one of the following recommendations:
Accept
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and sufficiently detailed comments to support their recommendations and assist both the editor and authors.
Author Revisions: When revision is requested, the corresponding author receives the reviewers’ and editor’s comments and is invited to submit a revised manuscript together with a response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed. Authors should clearly identify changes made to the manuscript and provide reasoned explanations where a recommendation has not been followed.
Re-Evaluation: Revised manuscripts are assessed by the assigned editor and, when appropriate, may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers. More than one round of revision may be requested when necessary to ensure that significant scholarly concerns have been adequately addressed.
Final Decision: The final editorial decision is based on the manuscript’s scholarly quality, the reviewers’ assessments, the authors’ responses to requested revisions, adherence to journal policies, and the editor’s independent academic judgment. The possible decisions are acceptance, further revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not by themselves determine the final editorial decision.
Copy Editing and Production: Accepted manuscripts undergo copy editing and production preparation to improve consistency, language clarity, formatting, references, metadata, and conformity with journal style. Editorial corrections made during production are not intended to alter the authors’ scientific arguments, results, or conclusions without consultation where substantive changes are involved.
Author Proofing: Where applicable, authors receive proofs before final publication and are responsible for checking the accuracy of names, affiliations, tables, figures, references, equations, and other publication details. At the proof stage, substantial changes to the accepted scientific content are normally not permitted unless approved by the editor.
Publication: Once editorial and production requirements have been completed, accepted articles are published online and assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), where applicable. Published articles become immediately accessible and citable in accordance with the journal’s open-access policy and publication schedule.
The single-blind peer-review system used by Archives des Sciences: A Multidisciplinary Journal means that reviewers may know the identities and affiliations of the authors, while reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to the authors. Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff are expected to treat submitted manuscripts and associated correspondence as confidential material.
Archives des Sciences: A Multidisciplinary Journal is committed to maintaining rigorous peer review, editorial independence, transparent decision-making, confidentiality, appropriate management of conflicts of interest, and high standards of integrity throughout the editorial and publication process.