The Peer Review Policy of STAIQC is shown in following Figure

STAIQC is a double-blind peer-reviewed international journal published in English. Articles for  consideration should be submitted using online submission form. Submissions through e-mail will not be considered. Submission will be electronic only. Manuscripts are reviewed in an unbiased manner, receiving prompt attention by the editorial office and its reviewers. After a preliminary assessment of the suitability of the paper by the Editor, any paper will go through a peer- review process. The review criteria considered will be the novelty and originality of the paper, the quality of research methodology, the organization and clarity, the reference to prior work, and the quality of results. Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database will be constantly updated. Reviewers are also asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  • Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly references previous relevant work.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but reviewers may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript. On the other hand, the required time for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewers. Should the reviewer’s reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second reviewer to review the manuscript, or when one reviewer’s report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one reviewer’s report. The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the reviewers, which usually include verbatim comments by the reviewers. The revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial reviewers, who may then request another revision of a manuscript. A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers. The reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept, revise or reject the article. The goal of the Editorial office is of providing the reviewers' reports, and the final decision by the Editor, within 30 days of submission. The whole process will be handled by the Managing Editor.

The journal is committed to keeping the content of all submissions confidential until the publication date. Although we make every possible effort to ensure the reviewers to honor their confidentiality and commitments, we cannot be held responsible for the conduct of reviewers. The reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential, and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. 

The reviewers' responsibilities are also very important at the peer-review process. They must follow the following principles:

  • Judgments should be objective.
  • Reviewers should have no conflict of interest.
  • Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
  • Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially.