Peer Review Process

International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM) ISSN (Online): 2321-3418 | DOI Prefix: 10.18535/ijsrm Publisher: Valley International

1. Type of Review

IJSRM operates double-blind peer review. Reviewers are not told the identity of the authors, and authors are not told the identity of the reviewers. Every research article, review article, case study, short communication, and technical note published in the journal has passed through this process. No content is published on the basis of editorial invitation alone.

To make blinding effective, authors must upload the title page — containing names, affiliations, ORCID iDs, and contact details — as a separate file. The main manuscript file must contain no information identifying the authors, including in the acknowledgements, funding statement, file properties, or self-citations phrased in the first person.

2. Who Reviews

Reviewers are selected by the handling editor for demonstrable expertise in the specific subject of the manuscript, evidenced by their own publication record. Reviewers are drawn from outside the authors' institutions and must have no recent collaboration with them. Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent reviewers; where their recommendations conflict materially, a third reviewer is invited.

Reviewers are asked to decline where a competing interest exists and to disclose any assistance used in preparing the review. Uploading a manuscript into a public AI tool breaches confidentiality and is not permitted.

3. Stages of the Process

Stage 1 — Initial editorial screening (typically within 7 days)

Every submission is checked by the editorial office and the handling editor for:

• fit with the journal's aim and scope;
• completeness — title page, structured abstract, all mandatory declarations (ethics approval, consent, competing interests, funding, data availability, AI use, author contributions);
• compliance with the Author Guidelines, including reference style;
• standard of written English sufficient for review;
• similarity index from plagiarism-detection software;
• effective anonymisation of the manuscript file.

Manuscripts that are out of scope, incomplete, or show unacceptable similarity are rejected or returned to the author at this stage without external review, with a brief explanation of the reason.

Stage 2 — Peer review (typically 4–6 weeks)

The handling editor invites reviewers and shares the anonymised manuscript. Reviewers submit a structured report and a recommendation. Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline are asked to notify the editor promptly so that a replacement can be found.

Stage 3 — Editorial decision

The handling editor evaluates the reviews together with their own reading and issues one of four decisions:

• Accept — publishable as submitted (rare at first review);
• Minor revision — small changes needed; usually assessed by the editor alone on resubmission;
• Major revision — substantive changes needed; normally returned to the original reviewers;
• Reject — the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards, or the concerns raised cannot be resolved by revision.

Reviewers advise; they do not decide. The handling editor makes the decision, and the Editor-in-Chief holds final authority. Decisions rest solely on scientific merit and are independent of any Article Processing Charge, and of the authors' nationality, institution, seniority, gender, or ethnicity.

Stage 4 — Revision

Authors receive the anonymised reviewer comments in full and are asked to submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response addressing every comment, indicating where each change was made or explaining why a change was not made. Revisions are normally expected within 21 days for minor and 30 days for major revisions; extensions may be requested. A revised manuscript submitted after a long delay may be treated as a new submission.

Stage 5 — Final editorial check and production

Once accepted, the manuscript is copy-edited, typeset, and checked for reference accuracy, figure and table quality, correct affiliations and ORCID iDs, and presence of all declarations. Authors review the proof and approve it. A Crossref DOI is assigned and metadata is registered before the article goes online.

The journal aims to complete first review within four to six weeks and to publish accepted articles promptly thereafter. These are targets, not guarantees; the journal will not shorten review in order to meet a date.

4. Assessment Criteria

Reviewers are asked to judge each manuscript against the following:

• Originality — does the work add something new to the field?
• Significance and relevance — is the question worth asking, and does it fall within the journal's scope?
• Methodological soundness — is the design appropriate, the sample or dataset adequate, the analysis correctly performed and reported?
• Support for conclusions — do the data actually justify what the authors claim?
• Ethical compliance — are approvals, consent, and declarations present and adequate?
• Presentation — is the manuscript clear, well organised, and comprehensible?
• Literature and referencing — is prior work cited fairly, accurately, and sufficiently, without gratuitous or coerced citation?

Reviewers are asked to comment on the work and not on the authors, and to support criticism with reasons an author can act on.

5. Confidentiality

A manuscript under review is a confidential document. Reviewers and editors must not share it, discuss its contents with third parties, retain copies after the review is complete, or make any use of unpublished data or ideas contained in it. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

6. Competing Interests

Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves where a competing interest could affect judgement — including recent collaboration or co-authorship with an author, employment at the same institution, a directly competing project, a financial interest, or a close personal relationship.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board, or by the Editor-in-Chief, are handled entirely by an independent editor with no connection to the authors, and the submitting editor has no access to reviewer identities or to the decision process. Such submissions receive no preferential treatment and are subject to the same criteria as any other manuscript.

7. Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by writing to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@ijsrm.net within 30 days of the decision, giving specific scientific grounds and responding directly to the reviewers' points. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, and the outcome is final. Appeals are not a route to a second opinion on a sound decision; a successful appeal requires evidence that a review contained a factual error or that a material point was overlooked.

8. Post-Publication Review and Correction

Publication is not the end of scrutiny. Readers may raise concerns about a published article at any time by writing to the editorial office. Substantiated concerns are addressed through a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, in accordance with COPE guidelines and the journal's Publication Ethics policy.

9. Reviewer Recognition

Peer review at IJSRM is voluntary and unpaid. The journal thanks reviewers for their work and, on request, provides confirmation of review activity that reviewers may use for professional recognition.

10. Contact

Editorial Office — International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM) Website: https://ijsrm.net | Email: editor@ijsrm.net