Peer Review Policy
Ensuring rigorous, ethical, and transparent evaluation of scholarly research
The Peer Review Policy explains the review models, editorial oversight, and standards we follow to ensure that the research published in the International Research Journal Of Series is rigorous, ethical, and transparent.
Review Models
We primarily use single-blind peer review, where reviewers are anonymous to authors. In some cases, we may use double-blind or open review models depending on the article type or special issue requirements.
Single-Blind Review
Reviewers know authors' identities; authors don't know reviewers' identities
- Standard practice for most submissions
- Protects reviewers for candid feedback
- Maintains reviewer objectivity
- Used for 85% of submissions
Double-Blind Review
Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other
- Used for sensitive or controversial topics
- Minimizes potential bias
- Author identities concealed from reviewers
- Applied to 10% of submissions
Open Review
Identities of both authors and reviewers are disclosed
- Used for special issues or invited papers
- Promotes transparency and accountability
- Reviewer comments may be published
- Applied to 5% of submissions
Editorial Oversight
Editors evaluate reviewer recommendations and make final publication decisions. Editors also ensure that conflicts of interest are managed and that ethical standards are upheld.
Editor-in-Chief
Overall responsibility for journal content and editorial policy implementation
Associate Editors
Manage the review process for assigned manuscripts and make recommendations
Section Editors
Oversee specific subject areas and ensure domain expertise in review
Guest Editors
Manage special issues and ensure consistent review standards
Review Process
Initial Screening
Editorial check for scope, formatting, and ethical compliance before peer review
Reviewer Selection
2-3 independent experts selected based on subject expertise and absence of conflicts
Review Period
Reviewers evaluate manuscript over 3-4 weeks, assessing quality, originality, and validity
Decision Recommendation
Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendation (accept, revise, reject)
Editorial Decision
Editor evaluates reviews and makes final publication decision with author guidance
Ethical Standards & Conflict Management
All participants in the peer review process must adhere to:
- Confidentiality of manuscript content and review process
- Declaration of competing interests
- Objective, constructive, and timely reviews
- COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines
- Prompt disclosure of any conflicts of interest
Quality Metrics
Our peer review process is continuously monitored for:
- Average review time: 21 days from assignment to completion
- Reviewer agreement rate: 85% consensus on manuscript quality
- Author satisfaction: 92% positive feedback on review quality
- Time to first decision: 6 weeks from submission to initial decision
For questions about our peer review process or to report concerns, please contact the editorial office. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly review and welcome feedback from our author and reviewer community.