All manuscripts submitted to Scientific Navigation undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality and integrity.
Review Process Overview:
1.    Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor to determine its relevance to the journal’s scope and basic compliance with submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected without external review.
2.    Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.
3.    Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on:
o    Originality and significance of the research
o    Soundness of methodology and analysis
o    Clarity and organisation of the writing
o    Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
o    Contribution to the field
4.    Decision Categories
Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editorial decision may be:
o    Accept
o    Minor revision
o    Major revision
o    Reject
5.    Revision and Final Decision
Authors invited to revise must address all reviewer comments in a detailed response letter. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for re-evaluation. The final publication decision is made by the editorial board.
6.    Timeframe
The average review period is 4–6 weeks from the date of initial submission. Authors will be notified promptly of all decisions.

Interested in becoming a reviewer?
We welcome qualified scholars to join our reviewer community. Please contact us at editor@scientificnavigation.com with your CV and areas of expertise.
Scientific Navigation is committed to fairness, transparency, and academic excellence in all aspects of the peer review process.