Peer Review Policy
IRJPL applies a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to maintain objectivity, minimize bias, and support fair scientific evaluation.
Reviewer Selection and Assignment
Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers selected based on subject expertise, academic qualifications, publication record, and absence of any conflict of interest. Reviewer selection is managed by the editorial team through the OJS platform, ensuring transparency and traceability of the review process.
Conflict Resolution and Additional Review
In cases where reviewer recommendations are significantly conflicting, the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief may assign an additional independent reviewer to ensure balanced evaluation and informed editorial decision-making.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide structured, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations. Their assessments must focus on:
- Originality and novelty of the research
- Scientific validity and methodological rigor
- Accuracy and interpretation of data
- Ethical compliance and research integrity
- Clarity of presentation and academic writing quality
- Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
Reviewers are also required to maintain confidentiality, avoid personal criticism, and declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review invitation.
Editorial Decision-Making
Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor based on reviewer reports, author revisions, and overall scientific merit. Editorial decisions are independent and are not influenced by the publisher or external stakeholders.
Review Timeline
The standard peer review period ranges from 2 to 6 weeks, depending on reviewer response time, manuscript complexity, and availability of qualified reviewers. In some cases, additional time may be required for major revisions, re-review, or additional expert evaluation.
