At Heighten Science Publication Incorporation (HSPI), our mission is to advance scholarly communication by upholding a peer review process that is as rigorous as it is transparent. Guided by core values of integrity, fairness, and collaboration, we have built a framework that not only evaluates scientific quality but also supports authors at every step. From the moment a manuscript enters our system, our goal is to streamline its journey—from initial checks to final publication—while ensuring compliance with global open-access mandates (including Plan S, DOAJ indexing standards, and CC BY 4.0 licensing) and the ethical guidelines set forth by COPE and OASPA. By embedding these principles in our workflow, we make cutting-edge research openly available without delay, foster trust among stakeholders, and bolster the impact of each contribution.

Initial Screening and Editorial Assignment

Every submission at HSPI begins with a meticulous preliminary review by our editorial office. Trained staff verify that manuscripts adhere to our detailed author guidelines—covering formatting, data-sharing statements, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and ethical approvals—and run robust similarity and plagiarism checks. Submissions that pass this gateway are rapidly assigned to a subject-matter editor whose expertise aligns with the paper’s focus. This editor evaluates the work’s novelty, methodological soundness, and alignment with our journal’s scope, leveraging tools such as iThenticate and ORCID validation to uphold research integrity. Through this structured triage, we aim to reach an initial decision—whether to send for full peer review or to request revisions—within ten business days.

Double-Blind Review for Unbiased Evaluation

To eliminate any undue influence on the assessment of scholarly work, HSPI employs a strict double-blind review process: authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed from one another throughout. Manuscripts are stripped of identifying information, and reviewers are provided anonymized files, allowing them to focus solely on scientific merit. This approach not only mitigates conscious and unconscious bias related to author reputation, institution, or geography but also aligns with best practices promoted by international open-access regulatory bodies. By writing and receiving feedback under this veil of anonymity, all participants engage on an even playing field—ensuring each manuscript is judged purely on innovation, rigor, and clarity.

Expert Assessment, Constructive Feedback, and Decision

Each paper is evaluated by at least two independent experts, carefully selected for their domain knowledge and ethical standing. Reviewers use a structured rubric to assess originality, experimental design, data analysis, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical guidelines—from human and animal research protocols to data reproducibility standards. Their reports emphasize constructive critique: identifying strengths, pinpointing areas for improvement, and suggesting additional experiments or clarifications where needed. Based on these detailed appraisals, editors arrive at one of four decisions—accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject—communicating not just the outcome but a clear narrative of reviewer insights. Our aim is to provide authors with actionable guidance that elevates the quality and impact of their work.

Resolving Divergent Reviews and Supporting Authors

Occasionally, reviewer opinions may conflict. In such cases, the handling editor solicits a third review or convenes an editorial board discussion to reach a fair and balanced judgment. We also offer authors the opportunity to request a review of the decision by a different editor if they believe key points were overlooked. During revisions, authors submit a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, ensuring transparency and fostering a collaborative dialogue. All correspondence and version histories are documented in our manuscript tracking system, guaranteeing an auditable record and reinforcing accountability.

Ongoing Improvement and Timely Publication

HSPI is committed not only to maintaining but continuously refining our review process. We regularly benchmark our performance against industry standards—tracking metrics such as time to first decision, revision turnaround, and publication speed—and solicit feedback from authors and reviewers to identify opportunities for enhancement. Our open-access model ensures that, once accepted, research is published online within four weeks under a Creative Commons license, maximizing discoverability and reuse. By integrating compliance with open access regulations, ethical oversight, and a culture of constructive collaboration, HSPI propels scientific progress and empowers researchers worldwide.