Peer Review Policy and Procedure

            At KITS PRESS, we strive to remain transparent, fair, thorough, and objective throughout our peer review process, which is periodically updated.

All submissions to Springer journals are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by an Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Proceedings papers are reviewed by the Programme Chairs and Programme Committee members of the respective conference, with help from external reviewers selected by them.

The chief editor also chooses peer reviewers for the journal. Typically, a candidate should be the first or second author on at least two peer-reviewed research publications that have been published.

As long as the authors have sufficiently eliminated any identifying information from the article, the peer-review process is double-blinded, meaning neither the identity of the peer reviewers nor the identity of the authors is revealed to either party. Prior to submitting their manuscript, writers must make sure that all such identifying information has been sufficiently removed. Both decision editors and peer reviewers may be suggested by authors, but the journal is under no obligation to take these recommendations.

A submitted manuscript is a confidential communication, and peer reviewers are not permitted to keep, distribute, or copy it unless the decision editor has given permission to do so, such as when seeking confidential feedback from a colleague who is also required to maintain the same level of confidentiality. If an author challenges an editor’s judgement, the editor-in-chief will evaluate the appeal and may consult with one or more senior editors as well as the decision editor who handled the submission. The editor-in-chief has the option of upholding the original decision or allowing the authors to submit the manuscript again for a new round of peer review by a new decision editor and set of reviewers. Based on the particular manuscript, other strategies might be suitable.

An erratum notice or other notification of the issue will be published in the journal as soon as practical if a work that has already been published is later discovered to have mistakes or significant defects.

The journal will deal with allegations of misconduct in the peer review or publication process to the greatest extent practicable; nonetheless, it may be necessary for the employer of a participant, a granting agency, or a regulatory body to conduct a more thorough investigation of the alleged misconduct. Beyond the prospective publication of findings as they relate to the scientific record, the journal has no authority to penalise one or more individuals; this authority belongs to an employer, awarding agency, or regulatory body.

Peer reviewer guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication.