Peer Review Policy

Peer review is a fundamental component of the IRABCS publication process and serves as an essential mechanism for maintaining the scientific quality, reliability, originality, and integrity of published research. Its purpose is to provide independent expert assessment of submitted manuscripts and to assist editors in making informed and fair publication decisions. IRABCS follows a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential during the evaluation process. This approach is intended to minimize potential bias and ensure that manuscripts are assessed primarily on their scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical compliance, and contribution to the relevant field.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to IRABCS undergo an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review. During this stage, the editorial office or designated editor evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope and meets the basic requirements for scientific and ethical consideration. The assessment may include consideration of the manuscript's originality, scientific contribution, methodological approach, structure and completeness, compliance with author guidelines, ethical approval requirements, conflict of interest declarations, authorship information, data and consent statements where applicable, and potential plagiarism or duplicate-publication concerns. Manuscripts that do not meet essential submission requirements, fall outside the journal's scope, raise significant ethical concerns, or fail to demonstrate sufficient scientific quality may be returned to the authors for appropriate correction or rejected without external peer review.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their academic qualifications, subject expertise, research experience, publication record, methodological knowledge, and experience in evaluating scientific manuscripts. The editorial team seeks reviewers who are able to provide independent, objective, constructive, and scientifically justified assessments of the work. Reviewers should not have personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationships that could reasonably compromise their impartiality. Previous reviewing experience, relevant research specialization, availability, and the specific expertise required for the manuscript may also be considered when selecting reviewers. The journal may use appropriate reviewer databases, editorial recommendations, or other legitimate sources when identifying qualified reviewers.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, and confidentially and to provide comments that are supported by appropriate scientific reasoning. Their assessment should consider, as applicable, the originality and significance of the research, clarity of the research question, appropriateness of the methodology, validity of data collection and analysis, interpretation of results, quality of presentation, ethical compliance, adequacy of references, and contribution to the relevant field. Reviewers should identify important relevant literature that appears to have been overlooked and should promptly inform the editor of any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification of data, inappropriate image manipulation, ethical violations, or other potential research-integrity concerns. Reviewer comments should remain professional, respectful, and focused on the scientific content of the manuscript.

Confidentiality During Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to IRABCS are confidential documents and must be treated accordingly throughout the peer-review process. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, author information, unpublished data, methods, results, or other confidential material to unauthorized individuals. Information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, professional, financial, or research advantage or for any purpose other than the evaluation of the assigned manuscript. Reviewers should also avoid discussing the manuscript with colleagues or seeking external assistance unless such assistance has been authorized by the handling editor.

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting or undertaking a review. A reviewer should decline an invitation when a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationship could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the objectivity of the evaluation. Potential conflicts may include recent collaboration with an author, employment at the same institution, close personal relationships, direct professional competition, financial interests, involvement in related work that could benefit from the manuscript's publication, or other circumstances that may compromise impartiality. Where a conflict becomes apparent after a review has begun, the reviewer should immediately inform the editorial office so that an appropriate decision can be made regarding continuation or reassignment of the review.

Peer Review Process and Editorial Decisions

Following completion of the external peer-review process, the handling editor evaluates the reviewer reports together with the manuscript and any responses or revisions provided by the authors. Depending on the scientific quality, ethical compliance, reviewer assessments, and editorial evaluation, a manuscript may be accepted, returned for minor revision, returned for major revision, or rejected. Reviewer recommendations are important evidence for editorial decision-making but do not independently determine the final outcome. The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision and may seek additional reviews or clarification when reviewer recommendations are substantially conflicting, insufficiently justified, or require further expert assessment.

Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address reviewer and editorial comments carefully and provide a clear response explaining how each substantive concern has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers when necessary. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance, as the revised version must continue to satisfy the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements. The editorial team may request further revisions when important concerns remain unresolved.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that the decision resulted from a significant factual error, misunderstanding of the manuscript, inappropriate application of the journal's procedures, or a demonstrable problem in the peer-review process. An appeal should provide a clear and reasoned explanation of the concern and, where appropriate, supporting evidence. Appeals should not be based solely on disagreement with a scientific judgment unless the author can identify a specific factual or procedural issue. Appeals are considered objectively by the editorial team, and the journal may seek an additional independent opinion when necessary. The outcome of an appeal is determined by the authorized editorial leadership and is communicated to the corresponding author.

Reviewer Conduct and Editorial Oversight

IRABCS expects all reviewers to maintain professional conduct, confidentiality, and scientific objectivity throughout the review process. The journal may discontinue a reviewer assignment when a reviewer fails to meet confidentiality requirements, provides inappropriate or abusive comments, demonstrates a significant conflict of interest, or otherwise compromises the integrity of the review process. The editorial team retains responsibility for ensuring that peer review is conducted fairly and that reviewer recommendations are considered in the context of the manuscript as a whole.

Peer Review and Editorial Independence

Peer review at IRABCS is conducted independently of advertising, sponsorship, publication charges, institutional relationships, or other commercial considerations. No reviewer, author, sponsor, advertiser, or external organization may influence the editorial decision through financial or commercial relationships. The purpose of peer review is solely to assist the journal in evaluating the scientific quality, integrity, and suitability of submitted research for publication.