ijier logo

Peer Review Process & Guidelines

Peer Review Policy

International Journal for Innovation Education and Research (IJIER) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure fairness, academic integrity, and publication quality. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review cycle, helping reduce bias and ensuring that editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit. Research literature also supports double-blind review as a way to reduce prestige and affiliation bias in manuscript evaluation.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated for originality, methodological soundness, academic relevance, ethical compliance, and contribution to knowledge before publication consideration.

Review Model

Double-Blind Peer Review

Under the journal’s review model:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s)
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewer(s)
  • Editorial decisions are made independently based on reviewer reports

To maintain anonymity, authors should remove identifying information from the manuscript file before peer review submission.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submission first undergoes editorial assessment by the editorial office.

The screening checks:

  • Relevance to journal scope
  • Compliance with author guidelines
  • English language clarity
  • Similarity / plagiarism screening
  • Ethical declaration completeness
  • Basic methodological quality

At this stage, manuscripts may be:

  • Sent for peer review
  • Returned for technical correction
  • Declined before review if unsuitable

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts passing editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject specialization
  • Research publication experience
  • Absence of conflict of interest

Where necessary, an additional reviewer may be invited.

 

3. External Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using structured academic criteria:

Core evaluation criteria:

  • Originality of research
  • Relevance of topic
  • Literature adequacy
  • Methodological rigor
  • Data quality and analysis
  • Interpretation of findings
  • Clarity of writing
  • Ethical compliance
  • Contribution to discipline

4. Reviewer Recommendations

After review, one of the following recommendations is issued:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revision
  • Major revision required
  • Reject

If reviewer reports conflict significantly, the editor may seek an additional expert opinion.

5. Author Revision Stage

When revision is requested, authors must:

  • Revise manuscript carefully
  • Respond point-by-point to reviewer comments
  • Highlight major changes made

Failure to adequately address reviewer comments may delay decision-making.

6. Final Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the editorial board after considering:

  • Reviewer reports
  • Revision quality
  • Journal publication standards

The editorial decision is final.

Average Review Timeline

Estimated Review Duration

Stage Estimated Time
Initial Screening 3–7 working days
Reviewer Assignment 3–5 working days
Peer Review 2–4 weeks
Revision by Authors 1–3 weeks
Final Decision 3–7 working days

Average total review cycle:

4–8 weeks

This duration may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are requested to:

  • Maintain confidentiality
  • Evaluate objectively
  • Declare conflicts of interest
  • Avoid personal criticism
  • Provide constructive academic comments
  • Submit reports within agreed deadline

Reviewers should focus on scholarly improvement rather than stylistic preference alone.

COPE guidance strongly emphasizes confidentiality and conflict disclosure during peer review.

Ethical Principles in Review

The journal does not tolerate:

  • Reviewer bias
  • Unfair delay
  • Use of unpublished content for personal advantage
  • Disclosure of manuscript content

Any ethical concern during review is handled according to international publication ethics principles.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit a justified appeal to the editorial office. Appeals must include:

  • Clear academic explanation
  • Specific response to reviewer concerns
  • Supporting scholarly evidence

Appeals are reviewed independently.

Confidentiality Statement

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents and may not be shared, distributed, or used outside editorial evaluation.

Quality Commitment

The journal’s peer review system is designed to maintain:

  • Academic credibility
  • Editorial transparency
  • International publication quality
  • Research integrity