All SERA open press journals use a double-blind peer review process. This means that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities during the review process. We believe double-blind review reduces bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated on their intellectual merit alone. Our editorial workflow incorporates AI-assisted tools for administrative tasks, while all scientific evaluation and editorial decisions are made by qualified human editors and reviewers. For full details on how AI is used, see our AI Transparency Statement.
Overview of the Editorial Workflow
1. Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system (Open Journal Systems). Manuscripts must be prepared according to the Author Guidelines and must not include any identifying information in the main text, figures, tables, or file metadata.
2. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)
Target: 3–7 days
Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editor (or a designated handling editor). During this stage:
- The manuscript is checked for completeness (all required files, declarations, and metadata)
- Plagiarism and similarity screening is conducted using established detection tools
- The manuscript is assessed for scope and fit with the journal
- Basic formatting and structural checks are performed
AI-assisted tools support this stage by flagging potential issues (e.g., missing ethics statements, formatting inconsistencies, citation anomalies) for the editor's attention. The editor reviews all flags and makes the decision.
Possible outcomes:
- Proceed to peer review
- Return to author for revision before review (e.g., missing elements)
- Desk reject (out of scope, fundamentally flawed, or ethically non-compliant)
A high desk-reject rate is normal and reflects rigorous editorial standards, not a flaw in the process. Fast desk decisions benefit authors by providing a rapid response, allowing them to submit elsewhere without prolonged delays.
3. Reviewer Selection and Invitation
Target: 3–7 days
The handling editor identifies and invites peer reviewers with relevant expertise. AI-assisted tools may suggest potential reviewers based on the manuscript's subject matter, keywords, and bibliography. The editor evaluates all suggestions and makes the final selection.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Expertise in the manuscript's subject area
- Publication record and review experience
- Absence of conflicts of interest
- Geographic and institutional diversity (where possible)
- Prior review performance (timeliness, quality of feedback)
At least two independent reviewers are invited for each manuscript.
4. Peer Review
Target: 21–35 days from reviewer acceptance
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide a structured review report addressing:
- Originality and contribution to the field
- Soundness of methodology and analysis
- Accuracy and validity of results
- Quality and clarity of writing
- Adequacy of references and literature review
- Ethical considerations
Reviewers provide a recommendation to the editor:
- Accept — The manuscript is suitable for publication as submitted
- Minor revisions — The manuscript requires small changes; re-review may not be necessary
- Major revisions — The manuscript requires substantial changes; the revised version will be sent back to reviewers
- Reject — The manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal
5. Editorial Decision
Target: 30–45 days from submission (first decision)
Based on the reviewers' reports and recommendations, the handling editor makes the editorial decision. The editor is not bound by reviewer recommendations — the final decision rests with the editor, who considers the full picture including both reviews, the manuscript's fit with the journal, and any ethical concerns.
All decisions are communicated to the corresponding author with:
- The editorial decision
- Anonymized reviewer reports
- Any additional guidance from the editor
6. Revision (if applicable)
Authors are given a reasonable deadline to submit a revised manuscript (typically 4–8 weeks for major revisions, 2–4 weeks for minor revisions). The revised manuscript must be accompanied by a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment point by point.
Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers, or the editor may make a decision based on the revision and response letter.
7. Final Decision and Acceptance
Once revisions are satisfactory, the editor issues a final acceptance. Manuscripts may go through multiple rounds of revision if necessary.
8. Production and Publication
Target: 7–21 days from acceptance
After acceptance:
- The manuscript undergoes copyediting and typesetting
- The author reviews and approves proofs
- A DOI is registered with Crossref
- The article is published online
SERA open press uses continuous (rolling) publication — articles are published individually as soon as they are ready, rather than waiting for a complete issue. This minimizes the time between acceptance and publication.
Timeline Summary
| Stage | Target Timeline |
|---|---|
| Desk decision | 3–7 days |
| Reviewer selection | 3–7 days |
| Peer review completed | 21–35 days |
| First decision (from submission) | 30–45 days |
| Acceptance to online publication | 7–21 days |
These are target timelines, not guarantees. Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision complexity, and other factors. SERA open press is committed to transparency — we will publish median processing times for each journal once sufficient data is available.
Reviewer Guidelines
Confidentiality
- All manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use information from manuscripts under review.
- Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to external AI tools or third-party services. See our AI Transparency Statement for our Reviewer AI Use Policy.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if they have any conflict of interest, including:
- Current or recent collaboration with any of the authors
- Financial interest in the outcomes of the research
- Personal relationship with any author
- Direct competitive interest in the manuscript's subject
Constructive Feedback
Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and constructive. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Feedback should help authors improve their work, even when the recommendation is rejection.
Timeliness
Reviewers who accept an invitation should complete their review within the agreed timeline (typically 21–35 days). If unable to complete a review on time, reviewers should notify the editor as early as possible.
Appeals
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may do so by contacting the journal's editor-in-chief with a written rationale. See our Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for details on the appeals process.