Peer Review Policy & Process

The  Journal of Integrated Innovation Science is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and rigor through its peer review process. The journal employs a double-anonymized (double-blind) peer review system, ensuring fairness, transparency, and unbiased evaluation of all submissions. This process guarantees that manuscripts are assessed solely based on their scholarly merit, independent of the authors’ identity or affiliations.

The peer review process follows the ethical principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and adheres to COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines to ensure ethical and professional conduct by all participants.

Double-anonymized (Double-blind) Review

In the double-anonymized review process, both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This policy eliminates potential bias and ensures impartiality by focusing solely on the quality of the research.

  • Reviewer anonymity: Authors do not have access to information about the reviewers evaluating their manuscript.
  • Author anonymity: All identifying information (e.g., author names, affiliations) is removed from the manuscript before it is sent for review.
  • This approach fosters an unbiased evaluation of manuscripts based on academic quality rather than the reputation or affiliation of the authors.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process at the  Journal of Integrated Innovation Science involves several systematic steps:

  1. Initial Screening:

    • Manuscripts undergo a preliminary check by the editorial team to verify their compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and originality standards.
    • Submissions that fail to meet these criteria are returned to the authors for revision or rejected outright.

  2. Reviewer Assignment:

    • Manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
    • Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, publication history, and familiarity with the topic of the manuscript.

  3. Review Process:

    • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for its originality, methodology, clarity, significance, and contribution to the field.
    • Reviewers complete a structured evaluation form and provide detailed, constructive feedback to guide the authors in improving their work.

  4. Review Timeline:

    • Reviewers are given a standard timeframe of 3–4 weeks to complete their evaluations.
    • Extensions may be granted upon request to ensure a thorough review.

  5. Editorial Decision:

    • Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.
    • For manuscripts requiring revisions, the authors are provided with detailed comments and suggestions to address.

  6. Re-review (if necessary):

    • Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers to confirm that the suggested changes have been implemented satisfactorily.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The journal expects all reviewers to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. These include the following principles:

  • Confidentiality:
    Reviewers must treat all information related to the manuscript as confidential and must not share or discuss it with others outside the editorial team.

  • Objectivity:
    Reviews should be objective, constructive, and based solely on the manuscript’s content, without bias toward the authors’ nationality, gender, or institutional affiliation.

  • Conflict of Interest:
    Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment, such as financial, personal, or professional relationships with the authors or the research.

  • Timeliness:
    Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If unable to do so, they should notify the editorial team promptly to avoid unnecessary delays.

  • Plagiarism and Ethical Breaches:
    Reviewers should alert the editorial team if they suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical violations in the manuscript.

  • Acknowledgment of Limitations:
    Reviewers should decline assignments if they feel unqualified to evaluate the manuscript or if they are unable to provide a thorough review.

The  Journal of Integrated Innovation Science values the contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their critical role in ensuring the quality and credibility of published research. The journal strives to maintain an efficient, fair, and ethical review process that upholds the trust and confidence of the global research community.