How manuscripts are assessed, reviewed and decided.
01
Editorial independence
Scientific decisions are separated from commercial, service, membership and payment interests.
The Editor-in-Chief has authority over the scientific content and timing of editorial decisions for the assigned journal.
Editors assess validity, relevance, reporting and fit; revenue, advertising, subscriptions, APC choices and purchased services do not determine acceptance.
An editor with a personal, financial, institutional or intellectual conflict must disclose it and leave the assessment to an unconflicted editor.
ISAIS administration may enforce legal, security and documented integrity requirements but may not replace a scientific decision for commercial reasons.
An editor decides whether the manuscript is unsuitable without external review or should proceed to qualified independent reviewers.
Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise, independence, availability and declared conflicts; reports are advisory and the editor remains responsible for the decision.
Authors receive a reasoned decision and, when revision is invited, must answer material comments point by point. Appeals follow a separate process.
The review model is stated on each journal profile only after configuration: single-anonymized, double-anonymized or open peer review.
Authors may challenge a decision by addressing the editorial reasoning with specific evidence.
An appeal must identify the manuscript, contested decision and the material scientific or procedural point believed to have been overlooked.
Disagreement alone is not sufficient; the appeal should respond to the decision letter and must not introduce an unrelated manuscript.
The appeal is reviewed by an editor who was not the sole author of the disputed decision whenever practicable. The resulting decision is recorded and communicated.
An appeal does not pause deadlines for a new submission elsewhere unless ISAIS confirms that the file remains under consideration.
