Peer Review Process

Deskomvis applies a rigorous, independent, and transparent editorial and peer-review process to ensure the scholarly quality, integrity, relevance, and publication readiness of submitted manuscripts. The journal uses a double-blind peer-review system in which author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another during external review.

1. Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts must be submitted through the Deskomvis OJS platform and prepared in accordance with the current Author Guidelines, Article Template, Submission Preparation Checklist, and applicable journal policies.

2. Preliminary Administrative Check

The editorial office checks file completeness, metadata, article-template use, author information, declarations, supporting documents, and basic technical requirements. Incomplete submissions may be returned before scholarly assessment begins.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates relevance to the Focus and Scope, manuscript eligibility, originality, research gap and scholarly contribution, methodological or analytical adequacy, ethical requirements, reference quality, similarity-screening results, and compliance with journal requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum requirements may be declined without external review.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the Initial Editorial Assessment are assigned to at least two independent qualified reviewers. Reviewer selection considers expertise, recent scholarly record, affiliation diversity, independence, availability, and conflicts of interest.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts independently and confidentially, focusing on originality, theoretical or conceptual framing, research design and method, evidence, analysis, interpretation, scholarly contribution, ethical compliance, and validity of conclusions.

Reviewers are prohibited from using generative AI or AI-assisted systems in the peer-review process and must not upload or transmit any unpublished manuscript material to an AI system.

6. Editorial Evaluation of Reviews

The handling editor evaluates reviewer reports and determines whether they provide an adequate scholarly basis for an editorial recommendation. Where reports conflict substantially or are insufficient, an additional reviewer or further editorial assessment may be requested.

7. Author Revision

When revision is required, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response to reviewer and editorial comments. Substantive comments that are not adopted must be addressed with an academically reasoned explanation.

8. Additional Review Round

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original or additional reviewers when further independent assessment is academically necessary. Minor revisions may be verified editorially when external re-review is not required.

9. Post-Review Editorial Verification

The handling editor verifies the revised manuscript, responses to reviewers, remaining scholarly or technical issues, declarations, references, metadata consistency, similarity requirements, and adherence to the current Author Guidelines and Article Template.

10. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering the manuscript, peer-review reports, author revisions, editorial verification, ethical requirements, and publication readiness. A Letter of Acceptance (LoA) may be issued only after the manuscript has formally received an Accepted editorial decision.

11. Copyediting, Layout, and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, metadata checking, layout/typesetting, author proofreading where required, and a final publication check.

12. Publication

After production and final checks, the article is published in the appropriate regular issue.

Expected Processing Time

The overall editorial and peer-review process generally takes approximately 3–5 months, depending on reviewer availability, the number and complexity of revision rounds, author response time, and ethical or technical issues requiring clarification. Reviewers are normally given up to 28 days per review round. In some cases, the overall process may take up to approximately six months.