Peer Review Policy

The peer review process is crucial for upholding high academic standards and ensuring the quality of content published in IJAI . This policy delineates the procedures and principles governing the peer review process, guaranteeing that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, transparently, and objectively. IJAI employs a double-blind peer review approach to maintain anonymity and impartiality; thus, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed throughout the review cycle. Independent experts evaluate each manuscript, assessing its quality, originality, and significance.

Upon submission of a manuscript, the following steps are undertaken:

The editorial team conducts an initial screening to verify that the submission aligns with the journal's focus, scope, and formatting guidelines.
The manuscript undergoes checks for plagiarism, ethical concerns, and adherence to journal policies.
Submissions that pass this screening are assigned to the editor-in-chief or associate editors for further scrutiny.

The editor-in-chief or associate editors select qualified peer reviewers based on their expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter, considering the following criteria:

Proficiency in the manuscript's research area.
Prior experience in reviewing scholarly work.
Availability and willingness to complete the review within the designated timeline.
Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their affiliations.

Once reviewers are appointed, they assess the manuscript according to several key criteria:

Originality: Does the manuscript present novel insights or contributions to the field?
Significance: Is the research important and pertinent to the journal's readership?
Methodology: Are the research methods sound, robust, and appropriate?
Clarity: Is the manuscript well-organized, clear, and coherent?
Ethics: Are ethical guidelines followed, including consent and research approvals where applicable?
Audience: Is the manuscript relevant to an international audience?
Contribution to Knowledge: Does the article enhance the existing body of knowledge in relation to contemporary needs?
Relevance: Is the subject matter timely and significant?

Reviewers provide detailed comments, suggestions for improvement, and a recommendation to the editor. Possible outcomes of the peer review process include:

Acceptance as is: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minimal or no changes.
Minor revisions: The manuscript requires minor corrections or clarifications before acceptance.
Major revisions: The manuscript necessitates significant alterations before it can be reconsidered for publication.
Rejection: The manuscript is deemed unsuitable for publication.

If a manuscript requires revisions:

The editorial office forwards reviewer comments to the authors, who are given a specified timeframe to implement necessary changes using track changes.
Authors must address each reviewer’s comment in a detailed response document, explaining how the revisions were made or providing justifications for not implementing suggested changes.
The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly if substantial changes have been requested.

The final decision to accept, reject, or request further revisions rests with the editor-in-chief or associate editors, who consider the reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of the revisions. Authors will be informed of the decision along with any additional editorial comments, if applicable. Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the academic record.

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide an objective, unbiased, and constructive review based on their expertise.
Submit their review within the agreed timeframe.
Treat the manuscript and associated materials confidentially, refraining from sharing or discussing the work with others.
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor prior to accepting a review assignment.
Provide clear, specific, and actionable feedback to assist authors in improving their work.

Editors oversee the peer review process to ensure fairness and transparency. The editorial team is responsible for:

Conducting the peer review process ethically and efficiently.
Selecting reviewers who are experts in the relevant field and free from conflicts of interest.
Clearly communicating reviewer feedback to authors.
Making the final decision regarding the manuscript based on peer review reports, author responses, and editorial judgment.

All participants in the peer review process must disclose any conflicts of interest that could impair the objectivity of their evaluations. Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

Financial relationships with organizations or individuals related to the manuscript.
Personal or professional connections with the authors.
Competing research interests.

Reviewers with potential conflicts of interest must notify the editorial team and may be excused from reviewing the manuscript. Authors are also encouraged to suggest potential reviewers without conflicts of interest.

The peer review process at IJAI is strictly confidential. Reviewers must not:

Share the manuscript or its contents with others without the editor's permission.
Utilize information obtained during the review process for personal or professional gain.

The identities of reviewers remain confidential and will not be disclosed to authors or other reviewers unless both parties agree to an open review process.

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may appeal by submitting a detailed explanation of their concerns. The editorial board will review the appeal, potentially consulting the original reviewers or additional reviewers, before reaching a final decision. Appeals should be based on the content of the review and must provide evidence supporting the authors’ arguments. Complaints regarding the peer review process can be directed to the editor-in-chief, who will investigate the matter and respond accordingly.

Timeliness is a priority in the peer review process

At IJAI . Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within 30 days. Editors will inform authors of any delays if the review process exceeds the anticipated timeline. The journal adheres to the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows best practices in peer review to uphold the highest standards of academic publishing. Any concerns related to ethical misconduct in the peer review process will be thoroughly investigated by the editorial board.