Cognitive Thinking is dedicated to maintain high standards of academic integrity and publishing excellence. This policy outlines the procedures, responsibilities, and ethical guidelines for peer-reviewers, ensuring fairness, transparency, and confidentiality.
Peer Review Process
Double-Blind Review: Cognitive Thinking follows a double-blind review process which helps reduce bias and ensures an objective assessment of the manuscript.
- Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent, expert reviewers who are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.
Reviewer Selection
The journal's editorial team selects reviewers based on their qualifications, expertise, and research interests. Reviewers are scholars or professionals with experience in the relevant field of study.
Review Criteria
Reviewers will evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Originality and Innovation: The novelty of the research, including its potential to make a significant contribution to the field of human knowledge systems.
- Scientific Rigor: The strength of the methodology, including sample size, data collection, data analysis, and reproducibility.
- Clarity and Organization: The structure and clarity of the manuscript to ensure the logicality of the argument and clarity of the findings.
- Significance of the Findings: The relevance and potential impact of the findings for the field specially and community in general.
- Adherence to Ethical Standards: Proper citation of sources, ethical treatment of human or animal subjects (if applicable), and transparency in data reporting.
- Writing and Language Quality: The clarity of writing and adherence to academic style, including grammar, spelling, and formatting.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality and not share or discuss the manuscript with others during or after the review process.
- Objectivity: The reviewers must be unbiased and unprejudiced to evaluate the content of the manuscripts only on its merits and demerits.
- Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, clear, and unbiased feedback that will help the authors improve their work. Reviews should be focused on the quality of the research and the manuscript's contribution to the field.
- Timeliness: Reviewers are required to adhere to deadlines set by the journal.
- Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: If a reviewer has a conflict of interest in the manuscripts, he/she should notify the editor and may decline to review the same.
Decision Process
After receiving feedback from the reviewers, the editorial team makes a final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations. Possible decisions include:
- Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication without changes or with minor revisions.
- Revise and Resubmit: The manuscript requires major revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.
- Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in Cognitive Thinking.
The corresponding author will be notified of the decision, along with any feedback provided by the reviewers.
Reviewer Feedback to Authors
The author(s) will receive a summary of the reviewers’ feedback, including suggestions if any for improvement. The feedback will aim to help authors improve the quality of their work. If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers’ comments in their revised manuscript and provide a response to the reviewers detailing how the changes have been implemented.
Reviewer Recognition
The reviewers who contribute to Cognitive Thinking will be acknowledged in the journal’s annual list of reviewers. In some cases, reviewers may also receive a certificate or other recognition for their selfless services. They may also be eligible for discounts on article processing charges or other benefits as determined by the editorial team.