Guidelines for selecting peer reviewers:

Our goal is to select reviewers who can provide fair, constructive, and well-informed feedback to help improve the quality of the manuscript. Our guiding principles for selecting reviewers are mentioned below-

1. Expertise in the Field: We choose reviewers who have expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers should have a deep understanding of the topic to provide insightful and constructive feedback.
2. Academic Credentials: We value for reviewers with relevant academic credentials, such as advanced degrees or significant research experience, that demonstrate their qualifications in the field.
3. Publication Record: We consider reviewers who have a track record of publications in reputable journals within the same or related field. This indicates their familiarity with the standards and expectations of academic publishing.
4. Experience in Peer Review: Prior experience in peer review is beneficial. Reviewers who have previously evaluated manuscripts for reputable journals are likely to be familiar with the peer review process and its responsibilities.
5. Objectivity and Lack of Bias: Ensure that selected reviewers can provide an unbiased evaluation of the manuscript. We avoid individuals with potential conflicts of interest, such as close collaborations or competition with the authors.
6. Timeliness and Responsiveness: Choose reviewers who are known for their ability to provide timely and constructive feedback. Avoid individuals who may have a history of delays in completing reviews.
7. Geographic Diversity: Aim for geographic diversity among reviewers to incorporate different perspectives and ensure a well-rounded evaluation. This can be particularly important in fields with regional variations in research approaches.
8. Diversity in Background and Demographics: We promote diversity in editorial board reviewer backgrounds, including gender, ethnicity, and other demographics. This can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable peer review process.
9. Awareness of Ethical Guidelines: We uphold the highest ethical standards in our peer review process, ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and constructive engagement. Reviewers undergo a comprehensive 2-3 hour training program, equipping them with the necessary skills to evaluate manuscripts effectively and adhere to ethical guidelines meticulously. This investment in training ensures the reliability and quality of our peer review process, fostering a culture of integrity and excellence in scholarly communication.
10. Communication Skills: We prefer reviewers who possess good communication skills, as they will need to express their critiques and suggestions clearly and effectively. This is important for facilitating understanding between the author and the reviewer.

How we recruit peer reviewers:

• Editorial Board Recommendations: We consider recommendations from the journal’s editorial board or associate editors. These individuals often have a network of experts and can provide valuable insights into suitable reviewers.
• Database and Peer Review Platforms: We utilize academic databases and peer review platforms that can assist in identifying potential reviewers based on their research expertise, publication history, and peer review experience.
• Volunteering for the position: We welcome qualified candidates to email the editorial office directly if they wish to volunteer for the position. In the email, candidates should include their latest CV, Google Scholar, Researchgate, SCOPUS, and ORCID profile pages.

The peer reviewer selection process typically involves the following steps:

1. Identification of Potential Reviewers: Editorial office identifies potential reviewers based on their expertise, experience, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript. They may consider suggestions from authors, editorial board members, or database searches.
2. Invitation to Review: Editorial office sends formal invitations to potential reviewers, typically via email or the OJS system, requesting their participation in the peer review process. The invitation includes information about the manuscript, its scope, and guidelines for the review process.
3. Reviewer Acceptance: Potential reviewers review the invitation and decide whether to accept or decline the invitation based on their availability, expertise, and potential conflicts of interest. If they accept, they commit to providing a thorough and timely review.
4. Review Assignment: Once reviewers accept the invitation, the editor assigns the manuscript to them for review. In some cases, multiple reviewers may be assigned to provide diverse perspectives on the manuscript.
5. Review Completion: Reviewers thoroughly evaluate the manuscript, providing constructive feedback, comments, and suggestions for improvement. They assess the manuscript’s quality, originality, methodology, significance, and adherence to ethical standards.
6. Submission of Review Reports: Reviewers submit their review reports to the editor by the specified deadline. The reports typically include an overall recommendation (accept, revise, reject) and detailed comments addressing various aspects of the manuscript.
7. Editorial Decision: Based on the feedback from reviewers, the editor-in-chief or handling editor makes a decision regarding the manuscript. This decision may involve acceptance, rejection, or revision with or without further review.
8. Feedback to Reviewers: Editors may provide feedback to reviewers on the thoroughness and quality of their reviews, acknowledging their contributions to the peer review process.

The peer reviewer selection process aims to ensure that qualified and unbiased experts assess the quality and validity of submitted manuscripts, ultimately contributing to the integrity and credibility of scholarly publications.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review Processes

1. Author’s Recommendations for Reviewers: While author suggestions for potential reviewers can be valuable, editors are not obligated to use these suggestions.
2. Confidentiality in Reviewing: Expert reviewers must uphold confidentiality when evaluating manuscripts, extending this obligation to any colleagues consulted for specific sections with the editor’s permission.
3. Handling of Submitted Manuscripts: Manuscripts submitted for review should not be retained or reproduced.
4. Use of Manuscript Content: Reviewers and editors should refrain from utilizing any data, arguments, or interpretations from the manuscript without the author’s explicit permission.
5. Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers are expected to provide prompt, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and well-founded reports.
6. Reporting Misconduct: Reviewers should confidentially notify the editor if they suspect any misconduct during the review process.
7. Transparency in Peer Review Processes: Journals should accurately describe their peer review, selection, and appeals procedures in their publications.
8. Transparency in Journal Operations: Journals should regularly disclose acceptance rates and publication timelines to maintain transparency and accountability.

If an author disagrees with the review comments, they are welcome to send an appeal on the same to the editorial office. The appeals process is as below-

1. Initiation of Appeal: If an author disagrees with the decision made by the editor based on peer review, they may initiate an appeal. This could be due to perceived bias, procedural errors, or other concerns regarding the review process.
2. Submission of Appeal: The author submits a formal appeal to the journal’s editorial office, outlining the reasons for their disagreement with the decision. This may include providing additional evidence, clarifications, or arguments to support their case.
3. Review by Editorial Office: The editorial office reviews the appeal to ensure it meets the journal’s criteria for consideration. They may also consult with the editor-in-chief or handling editor who made the initial decision.
4. Evaluation by Editorial Board: In some cases, the appeal may be reviewed by the journal’s editorial board or an appeals committee. This additional review helps ensure fairness and impartiality in the decision-making process.
5. Decision on Appeal: Based on the review of the appeal and any additional information provided, a decision is made regarding the outcome of the appeal. This decision may uphold the original decision, overturn it, or recommend further action, such as additional review or revision.
6. Communication of Decision: The author is informed of the outcome of the appeal, along with the rationale behind the decision. This communication is typically conducted in a timely and transparent manner to maintain trust and integrity in the peer review process.

The peer review appeals process provides authors with a mechanism to address concerns regarding editorial decisions and ensures that decisions are made fairly and in accordance with the journal’s policies and standards.

Refined Peer Reviewer Training Framework:

We are dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of double-blind peer review. To ensure the integrity and quality of this process, we adopt a comprehensive approach:

Reviewer Training Manual: All reviewers are required to complete our peer review training manual, accessible Pdf. Additionally, we strongly recommend participation in the Certified Peer Review Course offered by Elsevier (link).

Semi-Annual General Meetings: Bi-annual General Meetings are convened for the editorial office and peer reviewers. These meetings serve as forums to discuss the journal’s progress, revisit the peer review process, and explore upcoming innovations in the field.