All submitted manuscripts Journal of Scientific and Technological Research Alpha Centauri are read by the editorial staff. To save authors and reviewers time, only articles that appear to be most likely to meet our editorial criteria are submitted for formal review. Articles deemed of insufficient or inappropriate general interest by the editors are immediately rejected without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

Manuscripts deemed of Alpha Centauri  potential interest to our readers are submitted for formal review, usually to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example, on statistics or a particular technique). Editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, among several possibilities:

• Accept, with or without editorial reviews
• Invite authors to review their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is made.
• Reject, but indicate to the authors that additional work could justify a new submission.
• Refuse outright, generally for reasons of specialized interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or significant technical and / or interpretive problems

Reviewers may recommend a particular course of action, but should be aware that other reviewers for a particular article may have different technical knowledge and / or points of view, and editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. . The most useful reports therefore provide editors with the information on which to base a decision. Stating the arguments for and against the post is often more helpful to editors than a direct recommendation one way or another.

Editorial decisions are not a matter of vote counting or numerical rank evaluations, and we don't always follow the recommendation of the majority. We try to assess the strength of the arguments made by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information that is not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and the wider scientific community, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims in each article against the many others that are also being considered.

We may go back to the reviewers for more advice, especially in cases where they disagree with each other, or when the authors believe they have been misunderstood on some facts. Therefore, we request that reviewers be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. However, we are well aware that reviewers are often reluctant to get involved in lengthy disputes, so we try to keep inquiries to a minimum that we deem necessary to provide a fair hearing for authors.

When reviewers agree to evaluate an article, we consider it a commitment to review subsequent reviews. However, editors will not submit a forwarded article to reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticism.

We take reviewer criticism very seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to ignore technical criticism. In cases where a single reviewer objects to publication, we may consult the other reviewers if they are applying an unduly critical standard. From time to time, we bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialized technical point, on which we feel the need for further advice.