Peer Review Policy

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is central to maintaining academic rigor and ensuring published research meets the highest standards of quality and integrity. It serves to:

• Assess the quality, originality, and significance of manuscripts.
• Provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
• Ensure the validity and reliability of published findings.
• Maintain the scientific reputation of the journal.

We employ a single-blind review process, where reviewers know author identities, but authors remain unaware of reviewer identities.

Overview of the Single-Blind Peer Review Process

• Authors’ identities and affiliations are disclosed to reviewers.
• Reviewers remain anonymous to authors throughout the process.
• This ensures impartial evaluation while allowing contextual understanding of the authors’ background.

Submission and Initial Screening

• Editorial Screening: All submissions are initially reviewed for compliance with journal guidelines, relevance, and ethical standards.
• Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are chosen based on expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Rigorous Evaluation: Assess manuscripts for originality, methodology, clarity, and ethical compliance.
• Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed and respectful feedback highlighting strengths and weaknesses with actionable suggestions.
• Confidentiality: Treat all manuscripts and associated data as confidential.
• Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Declare any relationships or interests that may bias the review.
• Adherence to Deadlines: Notify editors promptly if delays are unavoidable.

Responsibilities of Authors

• Transparency: Submit accurate, complete manuscripts and disclose potential conflicts of interest.
• Revisions: Address reviewer comments comprehensively and include a response letter outlining changes.
• Cooperation: Respect editorial decisions and appeal only when justified.

Editorial Oversight

• Reviewer Management: Editors assign qualified reviewers and ensure impartiality.
• Decision-Making: Editorial decisions are based on reviewers’ feedback and manuscript alignment with journal scope.
• Confidentiality: Editors protect the identities and privacy of both authors and reviewers.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Manuscript submission via the online system.
2. Initial screening by the editorial team.
3. Reviewer invitation and assignment.
4. Review and evaluation by experts.
5. Editorial decision based on reviewers’ recommendations.
6. Author revisions (if required).
7. Final editorial decision and publication.

Handling Disputes and Appeals

• Appeals: Authors may appeal decisions by submitting written justification and supporting evidence to the editorial office.
• Resolution: Appeals are reviewed independently, and final decisions are communicated transparently to authors.

Ethical Considerations

• We adhere to COPE guidelines for ethical peer review practices.
• All submissions undergo plagiarism checks before peer review.
• Reviewer misconduct such as confidentiality breaches or bias will be investigated and addressed appropriately.

Continuous Improvement

• Feedback Mechanisms: Collecting insights from authors and reviewers to refine the process.
• Training: Providing ongoing training and resources for editors and reviewers.
• Technology: Using tools to enhance efficiency and review quality.

Transparency and Accountability

• Publishing peer review policies and guidelines openly.
• Acknowledging reviewers’ contributions periodically.
• Regularly reviewing this policy to ensure it reflects best practices.

Review

This policy is reviewed periodically to maintain alignment with global standards in scholarly publishing.

Most recent version: 25th October, 2024