Peer Review

Peer Review Policy – International Journal of Research (IJR)

Adopted Peer Review Methods

IJR has adopted three main review approaches, applied according to the nature of the manuscript:

Type of Paper Review Type Description
Research Articles, Review Papers, Case Studies, and Technical Notes Anonymous Peer Review At least two independent expert reviewers assess the manuscript. Author identities are known to reviewers, but reviewer identities are not revealed to authors (single-anonymized). In some cases, double-anonymized review may be used where both identities are concealed.
Proceedings Papers Peer Review (Conference) Reviewed by Programme Chairs and Programme Committee members of the respective conference, with assistance from external reviewers as required.
Editorials, Commentaries, Opinion Articles, and Book Reviews Editorial Review Reviewed by the Editor(s) if within their area of expertise. If not, at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member will be consulted. No formal peer review is required unless deemed necessary by the Editor.

General Peer Review Process

  1. Initial Screening:
    All submissions are checked for completeness and compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines.

  2. Editor Assessment:
    The assigned Editor decides if the manuscript should proceed to review. If the Editor is an author or has a conflict of interest, another Editorial Board Member will handle the process.

  3. Reviewer Selection:

    • Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise, reputation, and previous performance.

    • At least one reviewer must not be suggested by the author.

    • Institutional email addresses and ORCID/Scopus IDs are used for verification.

  4. Review Models Used by IJR:

    • Single-Anonymized: Most common; authors’ names known to reviewers, but reviewer names withheld.

    • Double-Anonymized: Identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.

    • Open or Transparent Peer Review: Used in special cases, with reviewer names and/or reports published alongside the article.

Reviewer Expectations

  • Provide objective, evidence-based evaluations.

  • Ensure constructive criticism with clear suggestions.

  • Avoid personal remarks, conflicts of interest, and misuse of confidential material.

  • Address key aspects: originality, methodology, statistical validity, clarity, references, and conclusions.

  • Follow COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Special Cases

  • Insufficient Reviewers: If two independent reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as the second reviewer or decide based on one detailed, expert report.

  • Rapid Review Needs: In cases requiring fast decisions, IJR prioritizes efficiency without compromising quality.

Diversity & Inclusion

IJR strives for diverse reviewer representation in terms of geography, gender, and academic background.

Reviewer Recognition

Peer reviewers may opt to receive verified review credits in their ORCID and Publons profiles.