Peer Review Policy

Review Model

IJPR uses a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are not told the identity or affiliation of the author(s), and authors are not told the identity of their reviewers at any stage of the process, including after a final decision is issued.

Stages of Review

  1. Editorial screening (within approximately 1 week): The editorial office checks the manuscript against the journal's Aim and Scope, confirms formatting compliance with the Author Guidelines, and runs plagiarism screening. Manuscripts that fail this stage are returned to the author without full review.
  2. Reviewer assignment: The handling editor identifies and invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise, screened for conflicts of interest.
  3. Independent review: Reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, methodological soundness, clarity of argument, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope, and submit written comments and a recommendation.
  4. Editorial decision: The handling editor or Chief Editor weighs reviewer recommendations and issues one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
  5. Revision and re-review (if applicable): Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original reviewers to confirm concerns were addressed.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on demonstrated subject expertise (publication record, professional experience, or specialization matching the manuscript topic). Editorial board members, on request, may also serve as reviewers. A reviewer with a personal, professional, or institutional conflict of interest with the author(s) must decline the invitation — see the Conflict of Interest Policy.

Timeline

Typical time to first editorial decision is 4–6 weeks from submission. This may extend for manuscripts requiring additional reviewers, specialist ethics review, or during periods of high submission volume; authors will be notified of significant delays.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers may not share manuscript content with third parties, cite unpublished findings from a manuscript they are reviewing, or use information from a manuscript under review for their own advantage.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, specific, and professional feedback, focused on the scientific and scholarly merit of the work rather than the author's writing style alone. Reviews containing unprofessional or ad hominem language are returned to the reviewer for revision before being shared with the editorial team.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal — see the Complaints and Appeals Policy.