Manuscript Submission Checklist
1. The Basics
How Editors Evaluate Your Manuscript
Before submitting your manuscript, make sure it meets the following expectations commonly used by journal editors:
| ☐ The manuscript clearly fits the journal's scope and aims |
| ☐ The research offers original insights and advances the field |
| ☐ The topic contributes to an active and relevant research area |
| ☐ The cover letter clearly explains the contribution and relevance |
| ☐ The abstract and conclusion clearly highlight key findings |
| ☐ The manuscript follows all journal formatting and submission guidelines |
| ☐ The writing is clear, concise, and academically sound |
| ☐ Ethical standards (authorship, citations, data integrity) are fully met |
How to Choose the Right Journal
| ☐ Review the journal's aims and scope |
| ☐ Consider your target audience |
| ☐ Check accepted manuscript types |
| ☐ Look beyond the Impact Factor |
| ☐ Evaluate the quality of previously published work |
| ☐ Check time to publication |
| ☐ Use the Journal Finder tool |
2. Manuscript Submission
Submission Guidelines Checklist
| ☐ Read the guidelines early |
| ☐ Prepare your manuscript accordingly |
| ☐ Check word and character limits |
| ☐ Include required sections |
| ☐ Follow formatting requirements |
| ☐ Format references correctly |
| ☐ Review editorial policies |
| ☐ Use correct file formats |
| ☐ Check funding requirements |
3. Structure and Layout
| ☐ Follow standard manuscript structure |
| Title – Clear and concise |
| Abstract – Summary of key elements |
| Introduction – Background and research gap |
| Methods – Study design and procedures |
| Results – Clear presentation of findings |
| Discussion – Interpretation and implications |
4. Figures and Tables
| ☐ Number and annotate consistently |
| ☐ Provide clear and concise captions |
| ☐ Use proper spacing |
| ☐ Include units where applicable |
| ☐ Choose legible fonts |
5. Editorial Policies
| ☐ Review journal's editorial policies |
| ☐ Include all required statements |
| ☐ Ensure compliance with ethical standards |
| ☐ Check for additional required statements |
6. After Submission
-
1
Submission Received
-
2
Technical Check
-
3
Editor Review
-
4
Peer Review
-
5
Final Decision
Guidelines for Reviewers
"We are sincerely grateful to the academic reviewers who dedicate their expertise to evaluating manuscripts submitted to our high-impact, internationally ranked journals indexed in major databases. Rigorous and ethical peer review is fundamental to ensuring the scientific rigor, originality, and relevance expected of top-tier academic publications."
Through your critical insights and scholarly judgment, you help uphold international research standards and contribute to the advancement of impactful and policy-relevant knowledge across disciplines.
— High Impact Editorial Team
Peer Review Process and Editorial Workflow
Peer review is a fundamental component of the scholarly publishing process and ensures that High Impact Publications upholds the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and rigor. All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo a strict and comprehensive peer-review process conducted by independent subject-matter experts.
Editorial Workflow Stages:
Technical Screening
Initial compliance check by the Managing Editor to verify submission requirements and ethical standards.
Editorial Evaluation
Assessment by Academic Editor to evaluate relevance, scholarly contribution, and recommendation of suitable reviewers.
Peer Review Coordination
Editorial Office invites independent expert reviewers and obtains minimum two detailed review reports.
Author Revision
Authors address reviewers' comments thoroughly; additional rounds of revision may be conducted.
Final Decision
Made by Academic Editor in consultation with Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board Member.
Publication Preparation
Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copy-editing and English language editing.
Note: Further details regarding the editorial workflow and reviewer guidelines are available through the journal's official resources.
Reviewer Qualifications, Roles, and Responsibilities
The role of the reviewer is fundamental to the integrity and credibility of the scholarly record. Reviewers bear a significant responsibility in ensuring that published research meets the highest standards of academic rigor, transparency, and ethical conduct. Accordingly, all reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, objective, and confidential manner, in full accordance with the ethical principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Eligibility Criteria:
Conflict of Interest Requirements
- No conflicts of interest with any of the manuscript's authors
- Not affiliated with the same institution as the authors
- No co-authorship within past 3 years
Professional Qualifications
- PhD or equivalent doctoral qualification
- Relevant subject-matter expertise
- Established publication record in the field
- Current official academic/research affiliation
Reviewer Responsibilities:
Demonstrate sufficient expertise
Critically assess scientific quality, originality, and contribution
Provide constructive reviews
Clear, high-quality reports within agreed timeframe
Maintain responsiveness
Stay engaged throughout the review process
Uphold professional standards
Maintain confidentiality and ethical conduct
Benefits and Recognition for Reviewers
Peer reviewing is a critical yet often unseen and undervalued contribution to the advancement of scholarly knowledge. High Impact Publications is firmly committed to acknowledging and rewarding the time, expertise, and dedication of its reviewers, whose efforts are essential to maintaining academic excellence.
Publication Fee Incentives
Discount vouchers for future APCs
For each completed review, reviewers receive a discount voucher applicable to article processing charges (APC) on future submissions to any High Impact Publications journal.
Professional Language Editing
English-language editing support
Reviewer vouchers may also be used to obtain professional English-language editing services through the publisher's author support services.
Formal Recognition
Certificates & public acknowledgment
Personalized certificates for academic evaluation, promotion portfolios, and annual public acknowledgment by the journal.
Awards & Editorial Advancement
Outstanding Reviewer Awards
Eligible reviewers considered for annual Outstanding Reviewer Awards and opportunities to join journal Reviewer Boards.
ORCID Integration & Visibility
Reviewer Recognition Service
Reviewers can maintain profiles on recognition platforms like Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, with peer-review activities formally recorded and integrated with ORCID profiles.
Editorial and Reviewer Advisory Board
The Reviewer Board (RB) is composed of experienced scholars who play a pivotal role in supporting the journal's peer-review process. RB members are expected to contribute regularly and proactively by delivering high-quality, rigorous, and transparent review reports for manuscripts within their areas of expertise.
Review Commitment
RB members complete minimum 6 manuscript reviews per year and recommend alternative reviewers when unavailable.
Term & Appointment
Initial one-year term, renewable based on mutual agreement and performance evaluation.
Public Recognition
RB members receive official certificates and are published on journal websites.
Note: RB membership carries the same responsibilities and benefits as regular reviewers, with additional expectations for sustained engagement.
Volunteer and Ad Hoc Reviewers
High Impact Publications actively welcomes qualified scholars to serve as volunteer reviewers for submitted manuscripts. Reviewer Board Members and Volunteer Reviewers may offer their expertise to evaluate articles across one or more journals published under High Impact Publications, depending on their disciplinary specialization.
Application Process
Interested scholars submit applications through the designated portal. Editorial Office assesses alignment with journal scope and verifies academic credentials.
Eligibility Verification
Applications assessed by publisher's internal editorial team for scope alignment, credential verification, and ethical considerations.
Career Advancement
Volunteer Reviewers demonstrating sustained engagement and high-quality reviews may be considered for promotion to Reviewer Board Member.
Important: To participate, applicants must meet the eligibility requirements specified in Section 2: Reviewers' Profiles and Responsibilities.
General Framework for Reviewer Recruitment in High-Impact Journals
Application Process:
Access the Submission System
Navigate to "Recruiting Reviewers" section under "Reviewers Menu" at https://
Browse Available Manuscripts
View all manuscripts available for application, searchable by journal or keywords
Apply for Review
Click "Apply" for selected manuscript. Editorial Office notified for background review
Approval Process
Internal editorial team reviews academic background and conflicts of interest
Important Note: You may only view and apply for manuscripts in journals where you hold the status of Reviewer Board Member or Volunteer Reviewer.
General Guidelines for Reviewers
7.1. Review Invitation and Acceptance Procedures
Manuscripts submitted to High Impact Publications journals are evaluated by a minimum of two independent experts, who may include Volunteer Reviewers, Reviewer Board Members, or reviewers recommended by the Academic Editor during the preliminary check.
Reviewers are expected to:
- Accept or decline invitations promptly, based on the manuscript's title and abstract
- Suggest alternative reviewers if they are unable to accept an invitation
- Request an extension of the review deadline if additional time is needed to provide a thorough and comprehensive evaluation
7.2. Identification and Management of Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest and are encouraged to contact the journal's Editorial Office if they are uncertain whether a situation constitutes a conflict.
Examples of potential conflicts of interest include:
Note: Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts that could be perceived as biasing their evaluation, either positively or negatively. Reviewers are advised to consult the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers published by COPE.
7.3. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities
Review Models: High Impact Publications journals operate either single- or double-blind peer review. Until an article is published, reviewers are expected to maintain full confidentiality of the manuscript content.
Key Responsibilities:
- Do not disclose identity to authors through comments or file metadata
- If delegating review, inform Editorial Office in advance; substitute must meet all criteria
Open Peer Review Option:
Authors may opt for open peer review where reports are published alongside the article. Reviewers can choose to sign their reports with explicit permission.
7.4. Preparation and Submission of Review Reports
General Instructions:
- • Review full manuscript and Supplementary Materials
- • Critically assess methodology, results, and conclusions
- • Provide detailed, actionable comments
- • Avoid excessive self-citations or journal citations
- • Maintain professional, constructive tone
- • Do not use AI tools for scientific analysis
Structure of a Review Report:
1. Brief Summary
One paragraph outlining manuscript's aim, main contributions, and strengths
2. General Comments
Highlight major strengths, weaknesses, or areas for improvement
3. Specific Comments
Reference line numbers, tables, figures with specific feedback
4. Guiding Questions (for Review Articles)
Assess clarity, references, methodology, results interpretation, ethics
AI Usage Policy: Reviewers must not use AI tools to analyze manuscript content or generate scientific insights. Limited use for language improvement (grammar, formatting, clarity) is acceptable only if disclosed. Uploading any part of the manuscript to AI tools violates confidentiality and is strictly prohibited.
7.5. Manuscript Evaluation and Rating Criteria
1. Novelty
Is the research question original and clearly defined?
2. Scope
Does the manuscript align with journal's aims and scope?
3. Significance
Are results interpreted appropriately and meaningfully?
4. Quality
Is the manuscript written clearly and professionally?
5. Scientific Soundness
Is the study properly designed and methodologically robust?
6. Interest to Readers
Will conclusions engage the journal's audience?
Publication Ethics:
- • Manuscripts must report original, unpublished results
- • All text, figures, and data must be original with proper citations
- • Research must comply with ethical standards
- • Concerns about misconduct should be reported immediately
7.6. Overall Recommendation to the Editor
Accept in Present Form
High quality, no changes needed
Accept after Minor Revision
Generally acceptable, minor changes required (5 days)
Reconsider after Major Revision
Substantial revisions needed (10 days, max 2 rounds)
Reject
Serious flaws, no resubmission offer
Important: Overall recommendations are only visible to journal editors and will not be disclosed to authors. All decisions must be clearly justified with specific comments.
7.7. Guidelines for Reviewing Registered Reports
Stage 1: Assessment of Study Proposals
Evaluate research proposal before data collection. No experimental data included. Focus on methodological rigor and feasibility.
- • Importance, clarity, and soundness of proposed hypotheses
- • Appropriateness and feasibility of experimental design
- • Sufficient methodological detail for replication
- • Adequate planning of outcome-neutral tests
Stage 2: Review of Complete Studies
Evaluate full study including data, results, and interpretation. Focus on adherence to registered procedures.
- • Whether data adequately test registered hypotheses
- • Consistency with Stage 1 approved hypotheses
- • Adherence to registered procedures or justification for deviations
- • Methodological soundness of new analyses
- • Whether conclusions are supported by data
Note: This two-stage review ensures studies are evaluated on design rigor and methodological transparency, promoting reproducibility and credibility.
7.8. Recording Peer-Review Contributions via ORCID
High Impact Publications allows reviewers to record and deposit their review activities into ORCID, provided their ORCID accounts are connected to their High Impact Publications Submission System accounts.
Register SuSy Account
If not already registered
Connect ORCID Account
Link through the platform
Manual Deposit
Deposit completed review activities
Benefit: These records are visible on the reviewer's ORCID profile, providing recognition of their contribution to peer review and supporting academic transparency and career tracking.
Become a Reviewer
Join our community of expert reviewers and contribute to academic excellence.