Peer Review and Editorial Process for Authors

Navigation: Resources > For Authors > Peer Review and Editorial Process for Authors

This page explains the general editorial and peer review process that authors may encounter after submitting to a CorayNova journal. It is intended to help authors understand common workflow stages, possible requests, and communication routes. It does not guarantee a fixed review timeline, acceptance rate, editorial outcome, or publication date.

Each CorayNova journal must publicly explain its peer review model, editorial screening process, reviewer number or reviewer expectations, and decision process. CorayNova encourages journals to publish revision-stage information and timeline information as a matter of best practice where reliable operational information is available. Journal-specific information on the CorayNova Journals Platform is authoritative for that journal.

· Common Workflow Stages

Stage

What May Happen

What Authors Should Do

Stage 1. Submission confirmation

After the final submission step is confirmed on the platform, the submission enters the journal workflow. Platform confirmation does not mean the manuscript has entered peer review or has been accepted.

Keep account details current and monitor platform notifications and email messages.

Stage 2. Technical and administrative check

The editorial office may check file completeness, article type, metadata, author information, declarations, ethics statements, data statements, permissions, language readability, and compliance with journal requirements.

Respond promptly if files, statements, metadata, permissions, or declarations need correction before editorial assessment can proceed.

Stage 3. Editorial screening

Editors may assess whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope, article type, quality expectations, ethical requirements, and readiness for peer review. Some manuscripts may be declined without external review.

Review any decision letter carefully. If the journal requests clarification or correction, respond through the platform route indicated by the editorial office.

Stage 4. Reviewer invitation

If the manuscript is considered suitable for review, editors may invite reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewer availability can affect timing.

Do not contact reviewers directly. If suggested reviewers are permitted by the journal, provide accurate information and disclose any possible conflicts.

Stage 5. External peer review

Reviewers may evaluate originality, methods, evidence, interpretation, reporting, ethics, data transparency, contribution, and fit with the journal. The review model may be anonymous, open, or otherwise defined by the journal.

Wait for editorial communication. Review comments are advisory to editors; the editorial decision remains the journal's responsibility.

Stage 6. Revision request

The journal may invite minor or major revision, request additional files or declarations, or ask for clearer responses to reviewer and editor concerns.

Submit a revised manuscript, a clear response letter, and any required supporting files through the platform. Explain changes point by point.

Stage 7. Further review or editorial reassessment

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by editors, returned to reviewers, or checked for specific issues such as ethics, reporting, data, references, figures, or language.

Ensure the revised files are complete and that tracked or highlighted changes follow the journal's instructions.

Stage 8. Final decision

Possible decisions may include accept, request further revision, decline, or recommend transfer or resubmission to another journal where appropriate and with author agreement.

Read the decision letter and follow the next step indicated by the journal. A transfer suggestion does not guarantee acceptance by another journal.

Stage 9. Acceptance and production preparation

After acceptance, the manuscript may proceed to publication checks, APC/payment steps where applicable, copyediting, typesetting, metadata checks, proof preparation, and production.

Complete any required payment, licensing, copyright, authorship, funding, ethics, data, or permission steps before production proceeds.

Stage 10. Proof review and publication

Authors may be asked to review proofs or publication-ready files. After final checks, the article may be published with article metadata, license information, and any assigned identifiers.

Check proofs carefully, respond within the requested route, and limit proof corrections to necessary factual, typographical, or production corrections.

· Why Delays May Occur

Editorial and publication timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision needs, missing files or declarations, ethics or permission checks, production requirements, author response time, and journal workload.

Possible Source of Delay

How Authors Can Help

Incomplete files or metadata

Upload all required files, label them clearly, and ensure the platform metadata matches the manuscript.

Missing declarations

Prepare funding, competing interests, ethics approval, data availability, AI use, preprint, and permission statements before submission.

Reviewer availability

Understand that reviewer invitation and response are not fully controlled by the journal.

Complex revisions

Respond to editor and reviewer comments carefully, point by point, and upload a clean set of revised files.

Permission or rights issues

Obtain permissions for third-party materials before submission and provide evidence if requested.

Production or proof corrections

Review proofs carefully and respond through the required route.

· Questions During the Process

For questions about manuscript status, editorial communication, peer review, revision, or production, authors should normally use the relevant submission discussion on the CorayNova Journals Platform or contact the Editorial Office at editorial@coraynova.com. For technical platform issues, contact support@coraynova.com.