IJIEOR follows a rigorous and transparent peer-review process designed to ensure the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all published articles.
Our peer-review process begins with an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the editorial team. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for external peer review. If a manuscript does not meet the journal's basic requirements or falls outside the journal's scope, it may be rejected at this stage.
Authors can expect an initial editorial screening decision within a maximum of two weeks after submission.
If a manuscript proceeds to external peer review, it undergoes a double-blind peer-review process by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their identities are concealed in the manuscript and in any supplementary files submitted for review.
The journal aims to complete the external peer-review process within four weeks, although delays may occasionally occur due to reviewer availability or other circumstances.
The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor.
Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the editorial team.
The initial editorial assessment considers:
- conformity with the journal's aims and scope;
- originality and scientific relevance;
- compliance with the journal's submission requirements;
- basic methodological and academic quality;
- research and publication ethics;
- plagiarism and text-similarity concerns; and
- potential conflicts of interest.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside the journal's scope may be rejected without external peer review.
Passing the initial editorial screening does not imply acceptance of the manuscript.
Peer-Review Process
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent for external peer review.
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
IJIEOR uses a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.
The peer-review process normally includes:
- Initial editorial screening;
- Assessment of research and publication ethics;
- Plagiarism and text-similarity checking;
- Assignment to appropriate external reviewers;
- Double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers;
- Evaluation of reviewer reports by the editor;
- Author revision when required;
- Additional review when necessary; and
- Final editorial decision.
The number of review rounds may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript and the revisions required.
Role of Reviewers
Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining and improving the scientific quality of IJIEOR. They provide independent, objective, and constructive assessments of submitted manuscripts.
Reviewer recommendations and comments are considered by the editor when making an editorial decision; however, reviewers do not make the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts carefully and provide clear, unbiased, and constructive comments that can help improve the quality of the work.
To maintain confidentiality, reviewers must keep their identities and all information concerning the manuscript confidential.
If a reviewer believes that a manuscript is outside their area of expertise, cannot be reviewed within the requested timeframe, or involves a conflict of interest, they should decline the review invitation.
Reviewers must not transfer, delegate, share, or otherwise disclose the manuscript or any part of the review assignment to another person without prior permission from the editor.
If outside expert advice is considered necessary, it may only be obtained with the editor's prior approval and must remain confidential.
If a reviewer becomes aware that a manuscript is simultaneously under consideration by another publication, or suspects plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research misconduct, the reviewer should confidentially inform the editor.
Reviewers should assess manuscripts on a case-by-case basis, considering their scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, clarity, structure, adequacy of references, and compliance with the journal's author guidelines.
Peer-Review Decision
Following completion of the peer-review process, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes the final editorial decision.
Possible decisions include:
- Accept;
- Minor Revision;
- Major Revision; or
- Reject.
The editor may request additional revisions or further external review when necessary.
The final decision is based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, contribution, ethical compliance, and reviewer recommendations.
Privacy and Confidentiality
Authors submitting manuscripts for review trust the journal with their research results and intellectual work. IJIEOR therefore treats submitted manuscripts and information relating to the peer-review process as confidential.
Editors must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts, including their content, review status, reviewer comments, or editorial decisions, to anyone other than authorized persons involved in the editorial process.
Reviewers and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and must not discuss unpublished work publicly.
Reviewers must not make copies of manuscripts, share manuscripts with unauthorized persons, or use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal, professional, or other advantage.
Confidentiality may be breached when disclosure is necessary to investigate suspected fraud, research misconduct, or other serious ethical concerns, or when required by applicable law or recognized publication-ethics procedures.
Conflict of Interest in the Reviewing Process
Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationship that could reasonably be perceived as affecting their impartiality.
Reviewers should decline to review a manuscript when a conflict of interest could compromise the objectivity or fairness of their assessment.
Examples may include close personal or professional relationships with the authors, recent collaboration, direct competition, institutional conflicts, or other circumstances that could create a significant positive or negative bias.
Reviewers should focus their assessment exclusively on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodology, and presentation of the manuscript and should avoid personal criticism or inappropriate judgments.
Any ethical concern or potential conflict of interest should be reported confidentially to the Editorial Office using the journal's official contact email.
Special Issues
Articles submitted to special issues are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as regular submissions.
All special issue manuscripts must undergo external peer review by at least two independent reviewers.
The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the editorial quality, integrity, and content of special issues.
Where guest editors are appointed, their qualifications and expertise are reviewed and approved by the journal. Guest editors work under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief or designated members of the Editorial Board.
Guest editors do not have sole authority over the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts and must comply with the journal's peer-review and publication-ethics policies.
Manuscripts submitted by guest editors themselves must be handled through an independent review process to ensure editorial impartiality.
Peer Review and Research Integrity
Peer review is conducted in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity policies.
Reviewers are expected to notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, or other forms of research misconduct.
The journal may request additional information, original research data, or supporting documentation when necessary to assess the integrity of a manuscript.
Use of Generative AI in Peer Review
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished material, reviewer reports, or other confidential information to generative artificial intelligence systems or external automated tools unless such use is explicitly permitted by the journal and appropriate confidentiality protections are in place.
Reviewers must not use generative AI systems to generate substantive peer-review assessments or recommendations.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their peer-review reports.
Review Timeline
The journal aims to complete the initial editorial screening within a maximum of two weeks after submission.
For manuscripts that proceed to external peer review, the journal aims to complete the initial review process within approximately four weeks.
These timeframes are targets rather than guarantees and may be extended in cases involving reviewer availability, additional review rounds, major revisions, or other circumstances beyond the journal's control.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editors based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and overall contribution of the manuscript.
Reviewers provide recommendations and evaluations, but the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.
The publisher does not interfere with editorial decisions based on commercial, financial, political, or other non-scientific considerations.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit complaints or appeals concerning the peer-review process, editorial decisions, publication ethics, or other editorial matters.
Complaints and appeals will be handled fairly, confidentially, and as promptly as reasonably possible by the editorial office.
Where appropriate, an appeal may be referred to the Editor-in-Chief or another independent member of the editorial team for consideration.
Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the original editorial decision will be changed.
Publication Ethics
The peer-review process of IJIEOR is conducted in accordance with recognized principles of ethical scholarly publishing.
For further information concerning publication ethics, research misconduct, authorship, conflicts of interest, corrections, retractions, and related matters, please consult the journal's Publication Ethics policy.
Additional Guidance
IJIEOR encourages reviewers and editors to consult the guidelines and resources of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) where appropriate.
For guidance specifically related to peer-review ethics and peer-review manipulation, reviewers and editors may also consult the following COPE resources:
- COPE Flowchart – Peer Review Manipulation Suspected During the Peer Review Process
- COPE Infographic – How to Recognise Potential Manipulation of the Peer Review Process
- COPE Guidance – Systematic Manipulation of the Publication Process
The COPE resources provide guidance for editors and journals on identifying, investigating, and responding to potential manipulation of the peer-review process.
