Editorial Process


SOAP operates a rigorous and transparent peer review process handled by researchers and scholars. We aim for efficiency, rigor, and fairness. For most journals, we utilize single-blind assessment with at least two independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the academic quality and final decisions.

Editorial Process Flowchart
Figure 1: Summary of the editorial process

1. Pre-check Stage

This stage consists of two steps:

  • Technical Pre-check (Managing Editor): Assesses suitability, adherence to standards, and rigor.
  • Editorial Pre-check (Academic Editor): Assesses scientific soundness, methodology, and scope. The editor decides to reject, request revisions, or proceed to peer review.

*Note: Guest Editors cannot make decisions on their own manuscripts; these are handled by other Editorial Board members to avoid conflicts of interest.

2. Peer Review Process

A dedicated staff member coordinates the process. While most journals are single-blind, some operate double-blind. At least two reports are collected. Reviewers are selected based on expertise and lack of conflicts of interest.

Criteria for Reviewers:
  • No conflicts of interest.
  • Different institution from authors.
  • No recent joint publications (3 years).
  • Hold a PhD or MD.
  • Proven publication record (Scopus/ORCID).
  • Recognized academic affiliation.

Reviewers typically have 7–10 days to submit reports. Extensions are available upon request.

3. Decisions & Revision

The Academic Editor makes the final decision based on reports and their own assessment.

Accept

Accepted for publication. Formatting and proofreading follow.

Request Revision

Authors must address comments. May require a second round of review.

Reject

Rejected for publication. Authors have the right to appeal.

Reporting Guidelines & Standards

SOAP follows strict guidelines to ensure quality and ethical reporting:

ICMJE
Medical journal management, peer review, and ethics.
CONSORT
Reporting randomized controlled trials (checklist required).
TOP Guidelines
Transparency and Openness Promotion.
FAIR Principles
Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability of data.
PRISMA
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
ARRIVE
Reporting in vivo studies (checklist advised).
iThenticate
Plagiarism detection used during screening.

Policies & Ethics

Ethics and Misconduct

SOAP adheres to COPE guidelines. Suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data falsification) is investigated strictly, potentially leading to retraction.

Conflicts of Interest: Must be disclosed by authors, reviewers, and editors at all stages. Alternative assignments are made if conflicts exist.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts and reviewer comments are strictly confidential and must not be shared.
Editorial Board Responsibilities: Members advise on policy, assist in peer review, and promote high-quality submissions while adhering to ethical standards.