Peer Review Policy

The Virosa Journal's , published by Virosa Publishing, is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly publishing. In order to ensure the quality, integrity, and originality of the research that we publish, all submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process. Peer review serves as the foundation of academic publishing, providing a transparent and impartial evaluation of manuscripts before they are accepted for publication.

Review Model

Virosapub follows a Double-Blind peer review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review. Authors are not informed of who reviewed their manuscript, and reviewers are not provided with the authors’ details. This ensures that evaluations are based solely on the quality of the work itself, free from personal, institutional, or geographical biases.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript submitted to Virosapub is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, adherence to submission guidelines, and compliance with ethical standards. Manuscripts are also subjected to a plagiarism check using reliable similarity detection software. Submissions that fail to meet the minimum criteria for quality, originality, or integrity may be rejected prior to external peer review.

Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

The journal maintains an international pool of expert reviewers who are carefully chosen based on their subject expertise, publication record, and academic qualifications. Conflicts of interest are avoided during reviewer assignment, and reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts before accepting a review.

Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the credibility of the journals. They are responsible for providing a constructive, fair, and unbiased assessment of the manuscript. Review reports must be evidence-based, respectful in tone, and aimed at helping authors improve their work.

Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are reviewed according to several scholarly and ethical criteria, including but not limited to:

  • The originality and novelty of the research contribution

  • Scientific validity and robustness of the methodology

  • Clarity, organization, and logical flow of the manuscript

  • Relevance of the research to the journal’s scope in artificial intelligence, science, and healthcare

  • Ethical standards in research, including the treatment of human or animal subjects, data integrity, and conflict of interest disclosures

  • The significance of the findings and whether the conclusions are supported by the data

Review Process and Timeline

Once assigned, reviewers are generally provided with 2–4 weeks to complete their review. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts. In cases where the two reviews provide conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer or make a final decision after editorial consideration.

Authors are given the opportunity to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments. Revised submissions are often sent back to the original reviewers to verify whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised.

Editorial Decisions

The possible editorial outcomes include:

  1. Acceptance without revisions (rare, reserved for exceptional submissions)

  2. Acceptance with minor revisions (editorial or formatting corrections required)

  3. Acceptance with major revisions (substantive improvements required before publication)

  4. Rejection (where the manuscript does not meet scholarly standards or the scope of the journal)

Final responsibility for all publication decisions rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who ensures that the decision is fair, unbiased, and consistent with the recommendations provided.

Confidentiality and Ethical Oversight

All manuscripts submitted to Virosapub are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers are not allowed to share, distribute, or use the content of the manuscript for personal purposes. The journal adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ensuring that the process remains transparent, accountable, and ethical.

Recognition of Reviewers

The journal values the important contributions of reviewers to the scholarly process. Reviewers’ names may be acknowledged annually on the journal website (with their consent), although individual reviews remain anonymous.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision have the right to submit a formal appeal. Appeals must include a detailed explanation and justification, which will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent member of the editorial board. Similarly, complaints about the review process will be investigated in accordance with COPE procedures, and corrective measures will be taken where appropriate.

Conclusion

Through its carefully designed Double-Blind peer review system, Virosapub ensures that all research published in the journal undergoes a fair, objective, and transparent evaluation. This process safeguards the scientific credibility of published work and reinforces the journal’s commitment to integrity, excellence, and the advancement of knowledge at the intersection of artificial intelligence, science, and healthcare.