Editorial Process

Editorial Workflow and Timelines	Submission and Initial Screening
Preliminary Editorial Review	First Editorial Evaluation
Peer Review	Author Feedback and Revisions
Review of Revisions	Final Editorial Decision
Production and Publication	Post-publication and Dissemination
Infographic of Editorial Process of Muse Journal

 

The editorial process of Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences (MUSE) follows international best practices in scientific publishing to ensure quality, integrity, and transparency from submission to dissemination. The process is structured in the following phases, each with estimated timeframes:

Editorial Workflow and Timelines

Phase	Description	Estimated Time
1. Submission	Manuscript submission	Open year-round
2. Initial Editorial Review	Preliminary check by the Editorial Board	Within 2-4 weeks
3. Peer Review	Double-blind review by two experts	Within 6-10 weeks
4. Editorial Decision	Final decision based on reviews	Within 1-3 weeks
5. Editing and Style Correction	Language and formatting edits	Within 1-3 weeks
6. Publication	Final publication after proof approval	Within 1-3 weeks
7. Post-publication	Dissemination and indexing	Immediate

1. Submission and Initial Screening

Authors must submit their manuscript using the official journal template and ensure it is anonymized (no names or affiliations). As part of the submission process, the following must be provided as separate files: a) A title page that must include authorship details, including the full affiliation of all authors, their ORCID number (https://orcid.org/), and their institutional email addresses. b) A list of names and affiliations of several potential reviewers who are not affiliated with the authors' institutions, along with their institutional email addresses, which are strongly recommended. See Author Guidelines for full instructions.

2. Preliminary Editorial Review

The Editorial Coordinator conducts an initial assessment to verify:

• Relevance and originality of the research
• Scientific structure and clarity
• Compliance with journal formatting and ethical standards
• Alignment with the journal’s thematic scope

The manuscript is also screened for plagiarism using Similarity Check. A confirmation email is sent to the corresponding author once this stage is complete.

3. First Editorial Evaluation

The Editorial Board evaluates whether the manuscript meets the minimum quality standards in terms of content and writing:

• If the manuscript does not meet the criteria, it may be rejected without external review.
• If approved, it proceeds to the peer review phase.

4. Peer Review (See also the Peer Review Policy)

The Editorial Board assigns two expert reviewers—national or international—based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area and language. The journal follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality.

Key aspects of the peer review process:

• Reviewers receive clear guidelines and a structured evaluation form.
• All reviewers must declare the absence of conflicts of interest before accepting the review.
• Review reports are archived in the editorial platform and serve as the basis for editorial decisions.
• In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer is consulted to ensure a fair outcome.

The report prepared by the reviewers will follow a defined structure and will be archived on the platform as part of the process. This document will serve as a tool for reviewers in their decision-making.

Plagiarism Check: all manuscripts are screened using Similarity Check. If the similarity index exceeds 30%, the editorial team will conduct a detailed analysis. Confirmed cases of plagiarism will result in immediate rejection and notification to the authors.

The outcome of the two reports, once reviewed by the editorial committee, will be sent to the authors along with the corresponding decision:

• Accept without revisions
• Accept with revisions (minor or major, with detailed comments)
• Reject

If major revisions are required, the revised manuscript may undergo a second round of peer review.

5. Author Feedback and Revisions

Authors receive an anonymized editorial report summarizing the reviewers’ comments and the editorial assessment. They are expected to:

• Revise the manuscript accordingly.
• Submit a response letter detailing the changes made and justifying any suggestions not incorporated.

6. Review of Revisions

If the revisions are minor, the Editorial Board will verify the changes along with the response letter. However, if the revisions are major, the manuscript will be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

7. Final Editorial Decision

The Editorial Board makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection. A formal acceptance letter is sent to the corresponding author. All decisions are justified and based on peer review reports and editorial evaluation. (See the editorial policy on scientific evaluation).

8. Production and Publication

Once the manuscript is accepted, it enters the production phase, which includes technical and editorial preparation for publication. This phase involves:

• Language editing and style correction to ensure clarity and consistency.
• Layout and graphic design according to the journal’s formatting standards.
• Assignment of a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) for permanent identification and citation.
• Inclusion in the appropriate issue or volume, and generation of publication formats (PDF, HTML, etc.).

Before publication, authors must:

• Review and approve the final proof (edited and typeset version).
• Sign the Declaration of Authorship and Rights Transfer.

Note: The article cannot be published without this signed document.

9. Post-publication and Dissemination

After publication, the journal actively promotes the article to maximize its visibility, accessibility, and scientific impact. This includes:

• Indexing in academic databases and search engines (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ).
• Promotion on academic social networks (e.g., ResearchGate, Academia.edu).
• Communication through newsletters, institutional press releases, and social media.
• Archiving in open access repositories and institutional platforms.

These actions aim to ensure that the article reaches its target audience—researchers, professionals, educators, and decision-makers—and contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

 

INFOGRAPHIC OF EDITORIAL PROCESS OF MUSE JOURNAL