Overview
Sciencevio peer review is designed to evaluate originality, methodological quality, ethical presentation, clarity, and relevance to journal scope.
Review route
Research manuscripts normally pass through editorial screening and external expert review before a final decision.
- Initial check for scope, completeness, author declarations, conflicts, ethics, data availability, and originality.
- Assignment to reviewers with relevant expertise and no declared conflict where possible.
- Editorial evaluation of reviewer comments, author responses, and journal standards.
- Clear labeling of content that receives editorial review rather than external peer review.
Decision categories
Editors may issue decisions according to the level of revision or evidence required.
- Accept after editorial and production checks.
- Minor revision for limited corrections or clarifications.
- Major revision when substantial method, analysis, reporting, or interpretation work is needed.
- Reject when scope, quality, originality, ethics, or evidence standards are not met.
How this page is used
This information supports authors, reviewers, editors, conference contributors, and readers by making the Sciencevio publishing route clear before submission and consistent after publication.
Use the policy to prepare declarations, files, permissions, ethics details, and journal or conference fit.
Editors and reviewers use the policy to keep decisions consistent, documented, confidential, and independent.
Corrections, reuse, metadata, archiving, complaints, and record updates are handled according to the published policy route.