Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Research, Innovation and Practice (IJRIP) is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of academic quality, fairness, transparency, and ethical integrity. With the exception of editorials, commentaries, and book reviews, all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process that adheres to the guidelines and flowcharts established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and recognized global best practices. Additionally, all submissions are screened for plagiarism using iThenticate  to ensure originality.

1. Type of Peer Review

To guarantee an impartial assessment based solely on scholarly merit, the journal employs a **double-blind peer review model**. Under this system:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from utilizing unpublished material for personal research and must maintain absolute confidentiality throughout the process.

2. Peer Review Process

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Before external review, the Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor evaluates each submission for:

  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Originality, clarity, and scholarly value.
  • Compliance with ethical standards.
  • Plagiarism check (must not exceed a 10% similarity threshold).

Manuscripts that do not meet these initial criteria may be desk-rejected within 7–14 days.

Step 2: Assignment to Reviewers

Submissions that pass the initial screening are forwarded to a minimum of two independent reviewers. Selection is based on the reviewers' academic expertise, publication record, and the absence of any conflicts of interest.

Step 3: Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the research.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Theoretical and methodological rigor.
  • Quality of clarity and presentation.
  • Ethical soundness.
  • Potential contribution to research, policy, or practice.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.

Step 4: Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision, taking reviewer recommendations into account. If necessary, additional reviewers may be consulted. Authors are typically notified of the decision within 8–12 weeks.

Step 5: Revisions

If revisions are requested, authors must submit a point-by-point response detailing how concerns were addressed. Manuscripts undergoing substantive changes may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

Step 6: Final Acceptance

A manuscript is accepted for publication only if it fully satisfies the journal’s standards for scholarship, ethics, and editorial quality.

3. Transparency & Timelines

IJRIP is committed to full transparency regarding its review process:

  • The peer review policy is publicly available.
  • Average time to first decision: 8–12 weeks.
  • Average time to publication: 4–6 months.
  • Key dates—including submission, acceptance, and publication—are clearly displayed on all published articles.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality. Breaches of confidentiality or ethical misconduct may result in removal from the reviewer database.
  • Provide evaluations that are objective, constructive, and timely.
  • Avoid personal or derogatory comments in their feedback.

Reviewers who contribute significantly may be recognized through annual acknowledgments or reviewer certificates.

5. Editorial Independence & Ethical Oversight

Editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher, based exclusively on scholarly merit and reviewer recommendations. Special issues and submissions from editors or board members undergo the same impartial review process. Any appeals are handled in strict accordance with COPE procedures.

6. Appeals & Complaints

Authors wishing to appeal a decision may submit a detailed justification to the Editor-in-Chief. The editorial team may seek additional opinions to resolve the matter. All appeals are processed following COPE guidelines.