Peer Review Policy

Purpose

Verdant Legacy Publications is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality, integrity, transparency, and scientific rigor. The peer review process serves as a critical mechanism for evaluating the originality, validity, significance, and quality of submitted manuscripts before publication. This policy outlines the peer review procedures followed by journals published by Verdant Legacy Publications.

Peer Review Model

All manuscripts submitted to journals published by Verdant Legacy Publications undergo a double-blind peer review process.

Under this model:

• Authors do not know the identities of reviewers.
• Reviewers do not know the identities of authors.
• Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, originality, scientific quality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Authors are required to submit a blind copy of their manuscript for peer review.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Office and Editor-in-Chief to assess:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
• Compliance with submission requirements.
• Ethical compliance.
• Originality and plagiarism screening.
• Scientific quality and completeness.

Manuscripts that do not meet basic editorial requirements may be rejected without external review.

Reviewer Selection

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to independent expert reviewers possessing relevant academic qualifications and expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject expertise.
• Research experience.
• Publication record.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

The editorial team strives to ensure fairness, impartiality, and confidentiality throughout the review process.

Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Where necessary, additional reviewers may be invited to provide further expert opinion.

The Editor-in-Chief may seek a third review when reviewer recommendations substantially differ.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively.
• Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content.
• Identify relevant published work not cited by the authors.
• Report suspected plagiarism, ethical concerns, or scientific misconduct.
• Declare any conflicts of interest that may affect their judgment.
• Submit reviews within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal research or professional advantage.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are generally asked to assess:

• Originality and novelty.
• Scientific validity and methodological rigor.
• Significance of findings.
• Clarity of presentation.
• Adequacy of data analysis.
• Relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Ethical compliance.
• Quality of references and citations.

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer reports, editors may reach one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without further revisions.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited modifications before acceptance.

Major Revision

Substantial revisions are required before further consideration.

Reject

The manuscript is unsuitable for publication due to scientific, ethical, methodological, or scope-related concerns.

Final publication decisions rest solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests should:

• Address all reviewer comments carefully.
• Submit a revised manuscript within the specified deadline.
• Provide a detailed response letter explaining how comments were addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for additional evaluation.

Review Timeline

Verdant Legacy Publications aims to provide authors with an initial editorial decision within approximately 4–6 weeks following submission.

Actual review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information regarding submitted manuscripts to any unauthorized individual.

Information obtained during the peer review process must not be used for personal benefit.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, personal, or professional conflicts of interest that could influence the evaluation process.

Individuals with significant conflicts of interest will not participate in the review of affected manuscripts.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe a decision was based on factual error or procedural irregularity may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals must include:

• Manuscript identification number.
• Detailed justification.
• Supporting evidence.

All appeals will be reviewed independently, and the Editor-in-Chief’s decision shall be final.

Ethical Standards

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the principles and best practices of:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
• International standards of scholarly publishing

Editors reserve the right to investigate suspected ethical misconduct at any stage of the review process.

Policy Review

This policy may be revised periodically to reflect evolving publishing standards and best practices.

Contact Information

For questions regarding peer review procedures, please contact:

Verdant Legacy Publications Email: editorial@verdantlegacy.org

Website: https://verdantlegacy.com