Peer Review Policy
Overview
Published by Synergy Publication, the journal maintains the highest standards of scholarly quality, fairness, transparency, and ethical integrity. Manuscripts, except editorials, commentaries, and book reviews, undergo rigorous peer review according to COPE guidelines and DOAJ best practices. All submissions are screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (Crossref).
Type of Peer Review
The journal uses a double-blind peer review process:
- Authors' identities are hidden from reviewers
- Reviewers' identities are hidden from authors
This ensures impartial evaluation based on scholarly merit. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and cannot use unpublished material for personal research.
Peer Review Process
1. Initial Editorial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor checks:
- Scope relevance
- Originality, clarity, scholarly relevance
- Ethical compliance
- Plagiarism threshold ≤10%
Non-compliant manuscripts may be desk-rejected within 7–14 days.
2. Assignment to Reviewers
Manuscripts passing screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers based on:
- Subject expertise
- Diversity of perspectives
- Absence of conflicts of interest
3. Reviewer Evaluation
- Originality and significance
- Relevance to journal scope
- Theoretical/methodological rigor
- Clarity and presentation quality
- Ethical soundness
- Potential contribution to research, policy, or practice
Possible recommendations: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject.
4. Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, consulting additional reviewers if needed. Authors are normally notified within 8–12 weeks.
5. Revisions
Authors must provide point-by-point responses. Substantive revisions may be re-evaluated by reviewers.
6. Final Acceptance
Only manuscripts that meet scholarly, ethical, and editorial standards are accepted.
Transparency & Timelines
- Peer review policy is publicly available
- Average time to first decision: 8–12 weeks
- Average time to publication: 4–6 months
- Submission, acceptance, and publication dates displayed on articles
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Declare conflicts of interest
- Maintain confidentiality
- Provide objective, constructive, timely evaluations
- Avoid personal or derogatory comments
Recognition may include annual acknowledgment, Publons/ReviewerCredits integration, or reviewer certificates.
Editorial Independence & Ethical Oversight
Decisions are made independently of the publisher, based solely on scholarly merit and reviewer recommendations. Special issues and submissions from editors/board members are handled impartially. Appeals follow COPE procedures.
Appeals & Complaints
Authors may appeal decisions to the Editor-in-Chief with detailed justification. Additional opinions may be sought. All appeals follow COPE guidelines.
