Editorial Procedures and Peer-Review

Editorial and Peer Review Process

Sustainability Quest (SQ) employs a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to uphold high academic and quality standards. Initially, submissions are vetted by the editorial team to ensure they comply with the journal's ethical standards and guidelines. Manuscripts not adhering to these will be excluded from the review process.

Upon passing the ethical check, the Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary evaluation based on the manuscript's relevance, scope, and overall suitability for Sustainability Quest. Following this assessment, selected manuscripts undergo a meticulous double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both reviewers and authors remain concealed, ensuring an unbiased critique of the submission.

Each manuscript is then appraised by two expert reviewers selected for their scholarly proficiency and expertise pertinent to the manuscript's subject. The Editor-in-Chief will deliberate over the reviewers' recommendations to reach a decision regarding the manuscript's publication status.

Authors will be informed of the outcome of the review process and receive all pertinent feedback for potential revisions or improvements. Sustainability Quest is committed to a swift and efficient review process, facilitated by our online submission system. Manuscripts offering new insights, theoretical advances, innovative methodologies, and substantial empirical findings are earnestly invited for submission and will receive due consideration from Sustainability Quest editors.

Back to Table of Contents

Conflict of Interest Policy

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment. A conflict of interest may arise from personal, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationships with the authors or affiliated institutions. Where a conflict is identified, the editor will reassign the manuscript to ensure an impartial and unbiased evaluation. The journal maintains strict editorial independence to safeguard the integrity of the review process. 

Back to Table of Contents

Editorial Decision-Making Procedure

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Handling Editor after careful consideration of all reviewer reports. In cases where reviewer recommendations conflict substantially, the editor may seek clarification, consult an additional independent reviewer, or conduct an adjudicative assessment. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Back to Table of Contents

Structured Revision Process

Authors receiving a decision of minor or major revision are required to submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer's comment systematically. All revisions must clearly indicate changes made in the manuscript. Manuscripts undergoing major revision may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation before a final decision is reached.

Back to Table of Contents

Ethical and Integrity Safeguards

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal data, or experimental procedures must comply with applicable ethical standards. The journal may request evidence of ethics approval, exemption, or informed consent during editorial assessment where appropriate.

Back to Table of Contents

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on demonstrated subject expertise, research experience, and publication record in relevant fields. The journal seeks to ensure diversity in institutional affiliation and geographic representation where possible. Reviewer identities remain confidential, and their evaluations are conducted independently.

Back to Table of Contents

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and associated materials are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality throughout and after the review process. Submitted materials may not be shared, distributed, or used for personal advantage.

Back to Table of Contents

Editorial and Peer Review Steps

Submission

1. Submission comes in.
2. Successful and Unsuccessful Submissions: After receiving a submission, our managing editor will review it to ensure it adheres to the journal's guidelines. If they determine the submission was made correctly, it will be considered successful and processed for desk review. Otherwise, it will be considered an unsuccessful submission. The editorial office will notify the authors about the unsuccessful submission and instruct them on how to resubmit in accordance with the journal's guidelines. Incomplete submissions will be removed from the system. 

Back to Table of Contents

Initial Checks / Desk Review

Following a successful submission, an in-house Managing Editor/editorial member will review all submitted manuscripts to ensure they are properly prepared and comply with ethical policies, including those on human and animal experimentation. Manuscripts that don't meet the journal's ethics policy or standards are rejected before peer review. Unprepared manuscripts will be returned for revision and resubmission. The Managing Editor then consults the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors to determine if the manuscript fits the journal's scope and is scientifically sound. Then forward to the next step, such as the peer-review process. Following the desk review, the editor will notify the author via email of acceptance for review or direct rejection. This process may take 2 to 3 weeks.

Back to Table of Contents

Peer Review Process

Initial Peer Review

After successfully passing the initial editorial screening and desk review, the manuscript is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area.

The SUSTAINABILITY QUEST operates a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of both the authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• Originality and scholarly contribution;
• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• Theoretical and conceptual significance;
• Methodological appropriateness and rigour;
• Quality of data analysis and interpretation;
• Clarity, organisation, and academic presentation;
• Compliance with applicable ethical and research-integrity standards; and
• Overall suitability for publication.

Reviewers are normally invited to recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept;
• Minor revision;
• Major revision;
• Reject and encourage resubmission; or
• Reject.

Back to Table of Contents

Editorial Assessment of Reviewer Reports

The Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor considers the reviewers’ reports, recommendations, and the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript before reaching an editorial decision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor and is based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, methodological soundness, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and compliance with the journal’s editorial standards.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may request clarification from the reviewers, seek an additional independent review, or conduct an adjudicative assessment before making a decision.

Back to Table of Contents

Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a decision requiring revision must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

All substantive changes should be clearly identified in the revised manuscript. Where an author does not adopt a reviewer’s recommendation, a reasoned academic explanation must be provided in the response letter.

Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the Handling Editor. Manuscripts requiring major revision may be returned to the original reviewers or, where necessary, assigned to additional reviewers for further evaluation.

The submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. The revised manuscript remains subject to editorial assessment and must satisfactorily address the issues raised during peer review.

Back to Table of Contents

Subsequent Review Rounds

Where further clarification or revision is necessary, the editor may request an additional round of review. Revised manuscripts will normally be assessed by the original reviewers to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised.

Additional review rounds may be conducted when required to ensure the reliability, clarity, and scholarly quality of the manuscript. However, the journal seeks to avoid unnecessary delays and will conclude the review process once sufficient evidence is available to support an editorial decision.

Back to Table of Contents

Final Editorial Decision

After considering the original manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and any revised versions, the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor will issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantive further revision.
• Accept with Minor Editorial Changes: The manuscript is accepted subject to limited editorial, formatting, or language corrections.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes that may normally be assessed by the editor.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes and may undergo further peer review.
• Reject and Encourage Resubmission: The manuscript requires substantial redevelopment or additional evidence but may be considered as a new submission after extensive revision.
• Reject: The manuscript contains fundamental weaknesses, falls outside the journal’s scope, or does not provide a sufficient scholarly contribution.

The final publication decision is communicated to the corresponding author together with the relevant reviewer reports and editorial comments.

Back to Table of Contents

Reviewer Recognition

The journal collaborates with the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, enabling reviewers to verify and receive recognition for completed peer reviews through their Web of Science Reviewer Profile.

The journal also provides an official Reviewer Certificate upon the successful completion of a peer review in recognition of the reviewer’s contribution to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Reviewer recognition does not disclose the content of confidential reviewer reports or the identity of the manuscript’s authors.

Back to Table of Contents

Timeliness and Publication Volume

Back to Table of Contents

Editorial Decision and Revision

All submissions undergo the double-blind peer-review process. The editor-in-chief will communicate the final decision to the corresponding author with the following status:

Back to Table of Contents

Acceptance with Minor Revision

Accepted papers with minor revisions based on reviewers' comments will be notified to the authors and given 5 to 10 days to make them.

Back to Table of Contents

Reconsider after Major Revisions

The manuscript's acceptance would depend on the revisions. If some of the reviewers' comments cannot be addressed, the authors must provide a point-by-point response or a rebuttal. Typically, only one round of major revisions is permitted. The authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within a reasonable time frame, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for additional feedback. (Round 3)

Back to Table of Contents

Reject and Encourage Resubmission

If additional experiments are required to support the conclusions, the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be encouraged to resubmit the paper once the additional experiments are completed.

Back to Table of Contents

Reject

The article contains serious flaws and/or makes no significant original contribution. There is no offer of resubmission to the journal.

Back to Table of Contents

Copy Editing Process and Publication

After acceptance and payment of the Open Access and Article Processing Charges, the manuscript will undergo professional copyediting, English editing, author proofreading, final corrections, pagination, and publication on the journal's website.

Round 4 (Details process)

1. After the payment confirmation, the submission will be assigned to the copy editor/layout editor.
2. During the copy-editing process, the copy editor may request additional information about the accepted paper, copyright, author, etc. The authors are responsible for providing the required material within the specified time frame.
3. English editing: If the copy editor finds a linguistic error, the author may be asked to provide the linguistic correction from any native speaker or expert.
4. The galley proof will be distributed to the authors within the specified time frame. Authors can request more time by emailing the editorial office and explaining why.
5. Following copyediting, the submission will be sent to production

Back to Table of Contents

Production and Publication

1. The file development, DOI, volume, issue assignment, and publication schedule.
2. During the production process, if authors are requested to make changes, they will be charged additional editing fees.
3. Assignment to the issue of the publication.
4. Notify the authors about their successful publication.

Back to Table of Contents

Author Appeals

We give rights to the authors who can appeal the rejection of papers by sending an email to the journal's editorial office. The appeal must include a thorough explanation, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or editor's comments, after the advisory recommendation on the manuscript by the editor-in-chief, which may recommend acceptance, additional peer-review, or upholding the original rejection decision. At this point, a rejection decision is final and cannot be reversed.

In the case of a special issue, the journal's editor will forward the manuscript and related information to the Editor-in-Chief and guest editor, who will be asked to provide their recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, additional peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. At this point, a rejection decision is final and cannot be reversed.

Back to Table of Contents