Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy 

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Innovations 
 
1. Overview 
 
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Innovations follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, academic integrity, and scholarly quality. 
 
In the double-blind system: 
 

• The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers. 
• The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. 
• Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit and ethical compliance. 

 
2. Submission Screening (Initial Editorial Review) 
 
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial office to assess: 
 

• Scope relevance 
• Basic formatting compliance 
• Ethical compliance 
• Plagiarism screening 
• Completeness of required documents 
• Manuscripts that do not meet basic standards may be: Returned for correction, or Rejected without external review (desk rejection). 

 
3. Assignment to Handling Editor 
 
If suitable for review: 
 

• The manuscript is assigned to a Handling Editor or Section Editor. 
• The editor identifies qualified independent reviewers based on subject expertise. 
• Editors must declare conflicts of interest before handling a manuscript. 

 
4. Selection of Reviewers 
 
Each manuscript is evaluated by independent reviewers. 
 
Reviewers are selected based on: 
 

• Subject expertise 
• Academic experience 
• Publication record 
• Absence of conflict of interest 

 
The journal does not disclose reviewer identities without explicit consent. 
 
5. Review Process 
 
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on: 
 

• Originality and novelty 
• Relevance to journal scope 
• Methodological rigor 
• Clarity of presentation 
• Validity of results 
• Appropriateness of references 
• Ethical compliance 

 
Reviewers provide: 
 

• Constructive comments for authors 
• Confidential recommendations to editors 
• Review recommendations may include: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision or Reject 

 
6. Editorial Decision 
 
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on: 
 

• Reviewer reports 
• Editorial assessment 
• Journal standards 
• Editorial decisions are independent and final. 
• The journal does not guarantee acceptance. 

 
7. Revision Process 
 
If revisions are requested: 
 

• Authors must submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe. 
• A detailed response to reviewer comments must be provided. 
• The revised manuscript may be sent back to reviewers for re-evaluation. 
• Failure to revise within the deadline may result in rejection. 

 
8. Confidentiality 
 
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. 
 
Reviewers must: 
 

• Not share or distribute manuscript content 
• Not use unpublished data for personal research 
• Not retain copies after review 
• Editors also maintain strict confidentiality. 

 
9. Conflict of Interest in Peer Review 
 
Reviewers and editors must recuse themselves if: 
 

• There is a personal or professional relationship with the author 
• There is institutional affiliation overlap 
• There is financial interest in the research 
• Undisclosed conflicts may result in reviewer removal. 

 
10. Reviewer Conduct and Ethics 
 
Reviewers are expected to: 
 

• Provide objective and constructive feedback 
• Avoid personal criticism 
• Identify ethical concerns 
• Notify editors of suspected misconduct 
• The journal reserves the right to remove reviewers who violate ethical standards. 

 
11. Protection Against Undue Influence 
 
Authors must not attempt to: 
 

• Contact reviewers directly 
• Influence editorial decisions 
• Offer incentives 
• Apply inappropriate pressure 

 
Such actions may result in: 
 

• Immediate rejection 
• Submission ban 
• Reporting to institutions (if necessary) 

 
12. Handling Ethical Concerns During Review 
 
If reviewers or editors suspect: 
 

• Plagiarism 
• Data fabrication 
• Duplicate submission 
• Authorship disputes 
• Ethical violations 

 
The journal will conduct an investigation in accordance with its Publication Ethics Policy. 
 
The review process may be suspended during investigation. 
 
13. Appeals Process 
 
Authors who disagree with a decision may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. 
 
Appeals must: 
 

• Be submitted in writing 
• Provide clear academic justification 
• Address specific reviewer comments 
• Appeals are reviewed independently. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision on appeal is final. 

 
14. Timeline 
 
The review duration depends on: 
 

• Reviewer availability 
• Manuscript complexity 
• Revision cycles 

 
The journal does not guarantee specific review timelines. 
 
15. Transparency and Continuous Improvement 
 
The journal periodically reviews its peer review procedures to maintain: 
 

• Fairness 
• Efficiency 
• Academic rigor 
• Ethical compliance 

 
16. Contact Information  
  
For any questions or inquiries, please contact us at:  
Email: info@saiyanshipublications.com  
Website: www.journalofmulti.com