Peer Review and Tie-Break Process
To ensure an agile publication cycle without compromising academic excellence, Spectrum adopts a structured review model designed for objective decisions and rapid resolution of deadlocks.
- Peer Review Structure
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening (Desk Review) and, if deemed within the journal's scope, are sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers.
The process operates under a DOUBLE-BLIND model, meaning the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept concealed until the completion of the review and acceptance process. This ensures unbiased judgment and a strict focus on content quality.
- Direct Decision Model
To accelerate the editorial workflow, Spectrum reviewers operate based on objective recommendations, avoiding multiple, lengthy review cycles. Reviewers must recommend one of the following options:
Accept (without modifications): The article is technically flawless, the argumentation is solid, and the presentation meets all journal criteria. It can be forwarded for publication exactly as submitted, without the need for further intervention by the authors.
Minor Revisions: The work has proven scientific merit but requires specific adjustments before final approval. These modifications do not affect the study's main conclusions and may include: grammatical corrections, improved clarity in specific paragraphs, reference formatting adjustments, image resolution enhancements, or the inclusion of recent complementary literature.
Major Revisions: The research addresses a relevant problem and has the potential for publication, but presents significant gaps that require substantial work. This recommendation is appropriate when authors need to conduct or add experiments, perform new statistical or mathematical analyses, deeply restructure the methodology, or rewrite the discussion to support the conclusions. The article will require a new round of review (preferably with the same reviewers) after the corrections are submitted.
Reject: The manuscript presents severe and insurmountable methodological flaws, ethical issues, incorrect premises, a chronic lack of scientific originality, or falls outside the journal's scope. A definitive rejection recommendation indicates that, even with extensive modifications, the work would not meet the required standards of excellence, discouraging the reworking and resubmission of the same study.
- Adjudication Protocol (Tie-Break)
Diverging opinions among reviewers (e.g., Reviewer 1 recommends "Accept" and Reviewer 2 recommends "Reject") are handled based on technical analysis rather than a simple majority vote. The protocol follows these stages:
Phase 1 – Adjudication by the Editorial Team (Managing Editor or Associate Editor): The Editor handling the manuscript holds the primary authority to resolve the tie. They do not act merely as a vote counter, but as a technical judge. The Editor will evaluate the rigor, depth, and scientific validity of both reviewers' arguments and make a final decision based on the quality of the critiques presented.
Phase 2 – Summons of an Additional (Ad Hoc) Reviewer: If the Editor determines that the conflicting reviews are inconclusive, superficial, or that the subject requires more robust validation, they have the immediate prerogative to invite a third (or fourth) expert reviewer to break the tie.
Phase 3 – Editorial Arbitration: In cases of exceptional complexity, author appeals, or conflicts of interest during the adjudication process, the final decision will be escalated to the Managing Editor or the Editor-in-Chief of Spectrum, ensuring the journal's editorial standards are maintained.
