1. Overview

At YellowMark Publishing House, editors and reviewers form the foundation of our commitment to academic integrity, transparency, and quality publishing. Each submission entrusted to us undergoes a structured yet collaborative review process designed to ensure fairness, accuracy, and constructive engagement between authors and reviewers.

Our editorial system operates through our secure online portal at yellowmark.org/user/login, where editors, reviewers, and authors communicate directly in a controlled and traceable environment.

YellowMark's editorial approach values timeliness, ethical responsibility, and academic excellence, ensuring that each article published upholds the standards required for future inclusion in major academic databases and indexes.

2. YellowMark's Peer Review Model

YellowMark Publishing House follows a single-anonymized peer review model. In this system:

• Reviewers know the authors' identities to evaluate their work within the full research context.
• Authors do not know the reviewers, ensuring honest, unbiased, and independent feedback.

This approach allows reviewers to assess the manuscript responsibly while identifying any possible conflicts of interest early in the process.

YellowMark strongly promotes editorial transparency—reviewers who endorse a manuscript for publication are acknowledged by name in the published article as part of our ethical recognition policy.

Our peer review model is designed to:

• Maintain scientific rigor and impartiality.
• Facilitate constructive, two-way communication between authors and reviewers.
• Reward editorial participation through structured reviewer bonuses and recognition.

3. Independent Review Phase

Once a submission passes initial editorial screening and ethics verification, the independent review phase begins.

Each assigned reviewer receives a formal invitation through yellowmark.org/user/login, where they can access the manuscript, supplementary materials, and review questionnaire.

During this phase:

• Reviewers assess the manuscript independently, without viewing other reviewers' comments.
• Each reviewer completes a detailed evaluation form, assessing originality, methodology, interpretation, relevance, and clarity.
• Reviewers submit a structured recommendation: accept as is, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

After all reviewers have submitted their initial reports, the handling editor evaluates the feedback, verifies objectivity, and decides whether to move the manuscript to the interactive review phase.

4. Interactive Review Phase

The interactive review phase reflects YellowMark's collaborative publishing ethos. Once this phase is activated:

• Authors receive access to anonymized reviewer comments within the portal.
• Authors can respond point-by-point, upload revised versions, and clarify scientific details directly within the system.
• Reviewers are notified automatically when new responses or files are uploaded.

The goal of this phase is to achieve scientific consensus through dialogue — not confrontation. Editors moderate these discussions to ensure professionalism and focus on scientific merit.

Reviewers can:

• Request clarifications or additional analyses.
• Acknowledge when authors have satisfactorily addressed previous concerns.
• Recommend final acceptance or rejection based on the revised submission.

This phase continues until the handling editor determines that the paper meets all publication standards and reviewer consensus is reached.

5. Reviewer Guidance

Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the credibility and reputation of YellowMark journals. When accepting an invitation to review, please ensure:

• The manuscript fits your field of expertise.
• You can complete your review within the requested timeframe (usually 7–10 days).
• You declare any conflicts of interest related to the authors, institutions, or funding sources.

Review Focus:

Reviewers should focus on:

• Scientific quality and methodology – Are the study design, analysis, and conclusions sound?
• Originality and contribution – Does the manuscript offer new insights or data?
• Ethical compliance – Are there approvals for human, animal, or data use where applicable?
• Clarity and presentation – Is the text well-structured and understandable for an international audience?

Best Practices:

• Be objective – Evaluate the science, not the author.
• Be constructive – Provide detailed, specific feedback that helps authors improve their work.
• Be courteous – Maintain professionalism and respectful tone at all times.
• Be comprehensive – Include all major recommendations in your initial report to avoid unnecessary delays.

6. Editorial Conduct and Ethics

YellowMark editors and reviewers must uphold the highest standards of integrity throughout the review process.

Editors are responsible for:

• Ensuring an unbiased and transparent review process.
• Protecting reviewer and author confidentiality.
• Avoiding conflicts of interest with authors, institutions, or funders.
• Making timely editorial decisions based solely on scientific merit.

Reviewers must:

• Maintain confidentiality and not share or use unpublished data.
• Refrain from personal criticism or unsubstantiated claims.
• Report any ethical or methodological concerns immediately to the editorial office.

Our editorial decisions are finalized only after all ethical and technical concerns are addressed to the satisfaction of both reviewers and editors.

YellowMark's Research Integrity Team monitors every submission for ethical compliance, plagiarism, and data authenticity before acceptance.

7. Reviewer Recognition and Incentives

At YellowMark, we recognize peer reviewers and editors as vital contributors to the scholarly ecosystem. Our recognition system includes:

Reviewer Acknowledgment:

Reviewers who endorse a manuscript for publication are listed by name alongside the editor on the final published article.

Bonus Programs:

Registered reviewers on yellowmark.org/user/login are eligible for:

• Review Bonus – for completing timely, high-quality reviews.
• Referral Bonus – for inviting qualified peers or authors to join the platform.
• Joining Bonus – for registering as a verified reviewer or editor.

Certificates of Recognition:

Upon request, reviewers receive formal acknowledgment certificates for academic use.

8. Communication and Support

YellowMark maintains open and responsive communication channels for all editorial participants.

For any issues related to:

• Review delays or extensions
• Technical difficulties in the submission system
• Ethical or authorship concerns
• Questions regarding reviewer recognition

Please contact your journal's editorial office directly through the "Support" section in the portal or via the official email provided on each journal's webpage.

Our editorial teams are committed to resolving all inquiries promptly and ensuring a respectful, professional, and transparent publishing experience for editors, reviewers, and authors alike.

9. Upholding the YellowMark Vision

The editorial community at YellowMark Publishing House upholds a shared mission: To promote ethical, fast, and globally accessible research publication, guided by integrity and scientific merit.

Every reviewer and editor contributes not only to improving individual manuscripts but also to strengthening the credibility and impact of open-access publishing worldwide.

Together, we ensure that YellowMark journals remain a trusted home for innovation, collaboration, and scholarly excellence.