Peer Review Process
IJIRMS follows a double-blind
peer review process designed to ensure an impartial, rigorous, and transparent
assessment of submitted manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers
are kept confidential throughout the review process.
Editorial
Screening
All manuscripts undergo an
initial editorial screening to assess their scope, originality, scientific
relevance, ethical requirements, completeness, and compliance with the
journal's Author Guidelines. Manuscripts that are unsuitable for the journal or
do not meet essential requirements may be declined before external peer review.
Editorial
Assessment and Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial
screening are assigned to an appropriate editor for further assessment. Suitable
manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with
relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise,
independence, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
Double-Blind
Review
Reviewers independently assess
the manuscript for originality, scientific and methodological rigor, ethical
compliance, clarity, significance, validity of results, interpretation, and
adequacy of references. Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations
to assist the editor and authors.
Editorial
Decision
The handling editor considers the
reviewers' reports together with the editor's own assessment. If the reports
are substantially inconsistent or additional expertise is required, an
additional independent reviewer may be consulted. The editor may make a decision
of Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Revision and
Re-evaluation
Authors may be required to submit
a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers'
comments. Revised manuscripts may undergo further editorial or external review
depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
Confidentiality
and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must maintain the
confidentiality of manuscripts and must not use, share, or disclose unpublished
information obtained during review. Reviewers must declare any actual or
potential conflict of interest and decline the assignment where appropriate.
Editors with a conflict of interest will not participate in the evaluation or
final decision.
Editorial
Independence
Final publication decisions are
based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, and
overall merit of the manuscript. Editorial decisions are independent of APC
payment, waiver requests, institutional affiliation, or the author's ability to
pay.
Peer review does not guarantee
acceptance. The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for the editorial
decision and integrity of the peer-review process.