Reviewing process

How does reviewing work ?

Reviewing is the key part of any scientific work. When you submit a manuscript to Emergent Scientist, it goes through the following steps:

1. Editorial pre-filtering

The manuscript is read by an editor, who estimates its relevance for the journal. Does the manuscript follow the basic guidelines provided as instructions ? Are there obvious flaws in the work ? If this quick check is passed, the manuscript is forwarded to the referees. Otherwise, it is sent back to the authors with an explanatory note.

2. First review

The editor selects 2 or 3 referees, who are knowledgeable in the field of the manuscript. Each referee assesses the manuscript independently, using the criteria described below. They provide a feedback to the editor in the form of a note containing three points :

  1. A general recommendation (Not suitable for publication / Publishable after modification / Publishable as it stands).
  2. A comment about the recommendation.
  3. A detailed report about the manuscript, including positive and negative critics of the manuscript under scrutiny, and recommendations on how to improve it.

3. Editor decision

Based on the reports provided by the referees, the editor decides the status of the paper:

  • The manuscript is accepted for publication. This decision is usually reached after several revisions of the initial manuscript.
  • The manuscript is publishable material, but there are still revisions to make before publication. Authors are invited to revised their manuscript following the referees' comments. Go back to step 2 !
  • The manuscript does not match the expectations of the journal as it stands, but authors are invited to re-submit their work after substantial modifications following the referees recommendations. Go back to step 1 !
  • The manuscript is too far from the journal line to be published.

In any case, the editor comes back to the author with the referees' reports and a letter explaining his or her decisions.

Emergent Scientist puts special efforts into providing authors a clear and constructive feedback. Whether your manuscript is accepted or not, we believe that peer-review will help improving the way you do science.

Assessment grid

In order to offer a transparent reviewing process, EmSci the evaluation grid given to the referees to homogenize the assessment criteria.

EmSci papers should be pedagogical and methodologically exemplary. Reviewers should be able to answer positively to the question "“would I give this article as a model to my own students if they were trying to write something, or willing to read about this subject ?”

Yes No questions
Yes No
Does the paper respect the format of EmSc (sectioning (incl. Dead Ends), length) ?
Is the length appropriate ?
Should the English writing of the manuscript be improved ?
Would you recommend your own students to read and imitate this work ?
General overview : 1(weak) – 4(high)
1 2 3 4
The paper presents an interesting and/or original topic.
The aim and main results of the study are clearly identified.
The presentation is pedagogical, notably in terms of figures.
The bibliography is up-to-date and complete.
Original and referenced works are clearly identified as such.
The paper is pleasant to read.
Introduction : 1(weak) – 4(high)
1 2 3 4
The problem is clearly stated.
The work is well motivated.
The reader wants to know more.
Method : 1(weak) – 4(high)
1 2 3 4
Relevant orders of magnitude are clearly identified.
Key scientific processes and mechanisms are clearly identified.
The method used is appropriate.
Results : 1(weak) – 4(high)
1 2 3 4
Theoretical, numerical and experimental results are clearly identified.
A proper treatment of experimental uncertainties has been carried out.
Figures are of a high standard and figure captions contain sufficient detail.
Discussion : 1(weak) – 4(high)
1 2 3 4
Theoretical results are tested against numerical results and/or experiments.
The agreement between theory and experiment is discussed honestly and transparently.
Dead-end : 1(weak) – 4(high)
1 2 3 4
Areas of difficulty discussed appear relevant to the study.
Clear statements are made about what did not work during the study.
A short discussion of the reasons for failure is provided.
Conclusion: 1(weak) – 4(high)
1 2 3 4
Main results are clearly stated.
Some perspectives are given.