Review Policy

1. Peer Review Process

IDEA Journal employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This means that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This policy is implemented to ensure an objective and unbiased evaluation of all manuscripts based solely on their academic merit.

 

2. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic reputation, and prior experience in the relevant field. The editorial board maintains a database of qualified reviewers and also welcomes recommendations. However, the final selection rests with the editors to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. A minimum of two independent reviewers are assigned to each manuscript.

 

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

Reviewers are expected to act professionally and ethically, following the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. They should not discuss the content with anyone, nor should they use any information from the manuscript for personal benefit.

  • Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively and constructively. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. All comments should be supported by clear arguments and references where necessary.

  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the specified deadline (typically 4-8 weeks). If a reviewer cannot complete the review on time, they must inform the editorial office promptly.

  • Conflict of Interest: Any potential conflicts of interest—such as personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors or the research topic—must be disclosed to the editor. If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

  • Plagiarism and Misconduct: Reviewers should alert the editor if they suspect any form of plagiarism, data manipulation, or other research misconduct.

 

4. Review Report

The review report should be comprehensive and provide detailed feedback to help the authors improve their manuscript. The report should include:

  • A brief summary of the manuscript's main contributions.

  • Comments on the originality, significance, and relevance of the research.

  • An evaluation of the methodology, data analysis, and conclusions.

  • Specific suggestions for improvement, referencing page and line numbers where appropriate.

  • A clear recommendation to the editor (e.g., "Accept," "Minor Revision," "Major Revision," or "Reject").

 

5. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on a manuscript's publication based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's own assessment. The decision is final and cannot be appealed. Reviewers' reports are shared with the authors (anonymously) to help them in their revisions.