Publication & Review Policy

1. Purpose and Scope

Holistence Publications conducts scientific and cultural publishing in accordance with ethical, transparent, and impartial principles.

This policy defines the evaluation procedures for full books (monographs and edited volumes) and book chapters to be published by our publishing house.

All processes are consistent with the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Scopus Books Evaluation Criteria, and the principles of the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB).

2. General Principles

  • All submissions undergo pre-editorial review.
  • The evaluation process is documented, confidential, and conducted in accordance with ethical rules.
  • Editors, reviewers, and authors are responsible for impartiality, confidentiality, and timely communication.
  • Conflicts of interest are declared, and individuals with such conflicts are not involved in the evaluation process.
  • Artificial intelligence tools may only be used for linguistic correction and formal control; confidential files cannot be uploaded to external AI platforms.
  • Each decision step is recorded and auditable via the OMP system.

3. Review Models

3.1 Full Book Submissions (Monograph or Compilation Volume)

Model: Editorial Review (Internal Evaluation)

Responsible: Holistence Publications Editorial Board

Stages:

  1. Preliminary check: Scope, ethics statement, plagiarism scan, and formal compliance.
  2. Editorial review: Scientific contribution, literature and methodological integrity, writing quality, publication suitability.
  3. Consultation: Additional opinions may be sought from subject experts if necessary.
  4. Decision: Accept / Revise / Reject.
  5. Publication preparation: Copy editing, typesetting, and ISBN–DOI assignment.

Transparency: These books are published with the statement "Evaluated using the Editorial Review Model."

3.2 Book Chapter Submissions (Editorial Books)

Model: Double-blind peer review

Responsible: Book editor and independent reviewers appointed by them; the publishing house editorial team monitors the process.

Stages:

  1. Preliminary check: Ethics statement, plagiarism screening, and formal suitability.
  2. Peer Review: Double-blind evaluation by at least two independent reviewers.
  3. Editor's Decision: Final decision based on reviewer reports; a third reviewer may be appointed if necessary.
  4. Revision: Author revisions and reviewer approval.
  5. Placement in the Book: Accepted chapters are processed as "Chapters" in a single book record; separate DOIs are assigned to the book and chapters.

Transparency: Each book includes the statement "This chapter has undergone a double-blind peer review process."

4. Evaluation Criteria

  • Thematic fit: The work must align with the series or book's scope.
  • Originality and contribution: It must offer a new perspective and contribution to the field.
  • Methodological validity: The scientific method and evidence base must be clear.
  • Writing and source organisation: The language should be fluent, and the bibliography should be accurate and consistent.
  • Ethical compliance: Ethical permissions, conflict of interest statements, and copyrights must be complete.
  • Open science and access: In open-access works, licensing, funding, and data sharing are transparent.

5. Ethics Violation and Plagiarism Management

All files are scanned through Similarity Check.

If a violation is suspected, the process is halted immediately and an investigation is conducted in accordance with COPE flowcharts.

If necessary, a correction (erratum), retraction, or correction note is published.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence

  • Artificial intelligence cannot replace referees or editors.
  • It can only be used for linguistic corrections and stylistic suggestions.
  • Review files cannot be uploaded to external AI platforms.
  • If used, it is reported to the editor as a "note."
  • Misleading or unauthorised use of AI is an ethical violation.

7. Conflict of Interest

  • Editors, reviewers, and authors are required to declare any financial or personal conflicts of interest.
  • Those who have co-authored publications, worked at the same institution, or had a consulting relationship within the last 3 years are not eligible to participate in the evaluation process.
  • COI declarations are kept by the publisher and disclosed if necessary.

8. Transparency and Record Keeping

The evaluation Model applied to each work, the dates of peer review, and the decision stages are recorded on OMP.

Transparency is ensured by referencing this policy in the catalogue and on our website.

License and peer-review information is made visible for open-access works.

9. Appeal and Review

Authors may submit reasoned objections to the decision within 30 days.

Objections are reviewed again by an independent editor or reviewer.

The final decision is communicated to the author with justification.

10. Compliance and Review

The Holistence Publications Evaluation Policy is updated at least once a year, and the current version is published on our website.

This document is general and binding for all series and book projects of our publishing house.

In short:

Every publication within Holistence Publications undergoes an ethical, confidential, impartial, and documented evaluation process.

Editorial review and double-blind peer review models are the cornerstone of our publishing house's quality assurance.