Peer Review

At Erytis Publishing Limited, we are committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record by conducting a robust peer review process.
Upon submission, our editorial team carefully assesses each manuscript to ensure it aligns with our submission guidelines and falls within the scope of the journal. If found suitable, the manuscript is sent to a minimum of two independent reviewers who are experts in the field. These reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive feedback and recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
Reviewers' comments are taken into consideration by the handling editor who makes the final decision on the manuscript. The process is designed to ensure that each submission receives fair and unbiased evaluation.
We take the confidentiality of the review process seriously. Neither reviewers nor authors can disclose their identities or share any part of the review process publicly without mutual consent.
Our peer review policy aims to ensure the quality and reliability of published articles, maintain the trust of the scientific community, and contribute to the dissemination of high-quality scholarly work.
 
Reviewers
Manuscript submissions undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and a plagiarism check with iThenticate. Suppose they do not reject it directly because of ethical concerns, plagiarism issues, or the submission does not fit the journal's scope. The EiC will assign it to a responsible editor who handles the review process.
 
Peer reviewers are primarily published authors of this journal or other relevant experts who have benefited from the expertise of other authors before having their manuscripts reviewed. They declare their expertise in their journal profile and are then assigned manuscripts whose topic matches their expertise for review. At least two reviewers review each manuscript.
 
Researchers, clinicians, and professionals with relevant expertise may be invited to participate in the peer review process. The journal editor ensures reviewers' identities through ORCID, PubMed, Scopus searches, Google Scholar or CV verification. Authors can suggest potential reviewers, but editors have the final say, avoiding conflicts of interest. Authors must provide detailed information on suggested reviewers. Excluding reviewers with conflicts is allowed but should be reasonable to maintain a smooth review process. Editors ultimately decide on suitable reviewers, and any intentional falsification of information can lead to manuscript rejection and ethical investigations into the authors' publication history.
 
Peer reviewers play an essential role in ensuring the quality of this journal's scholarly publications as they contribute to the editorial decisions. They must ethically conduct their reviews. The journal expects clear communication and objective, fair, unbiased, and timely reviews from them. Reviewers should neither disclose the information they obtain from an unpublished work nor use it for their advantage. Nobody else should be involved in the review unless the journal has permission. They will inform the responsible editor and decline the review if there are possible conflicts of interest about the research, the authors, or the funders.
 
This journal employs a double-anonymized peer review to ensure an impartial, fair, and non-biased review. Once a manuscript has been assigned to the reviewers, they have one week to accept or decline the review. If they accept, they have two more weeks to complete the review. Reviewers are given on-screen guidelines to cover all essential aspects. When a reviewer suspects research or publication misconduct, they should report this to the responsible section editor, who, in turn, conducts further investigations and decides with the Editor-in-Chief about which measures to take.
 
A reviewer who has agreed to do the review will download the anonymized manuscript and review it with the help of the on-screen guidelines. The reviewer must fill in the displayed review form, select a review recommendation (accept, reject, or revise), and optionally upload an additional free-form review report.