Review Policy-Guidelines

Editorial Review and Peer Review Policies and Guidelines

The editorial teams of IDEA-PG journals strictly follow the policies and procedures for the editorial and peer review processes of the manuscripts through which it is ensured that:

  • the content of the manuscript is relevant to the aim/scope of the journal
  • the manuscript has produced an innovative and quality research
  • the format and layout of the journal are followed in the manuscript, and
  • the style, grammar, and language composition used in the manuscript are correct

The review policy of IDEA-PG journals involves both editorial and peer review of manuscripts. If accepted by the editorial team, the manuscript is then processed for double-blind peer review by experts of international repute. Before publication, a manuscript must be accepted by at least three experts in the relevant field. The identity of the author(s) shall be kept confidential from the peer reviewers and vice versa during the peer review process. The peer reviewers may know the authors' identities only after the manuscript's publication.

  • The manuscripts submitted to the IDEA-PG journals are assigned to a section editor, who is responsible for processing them in accordance with the journal's policy and procedures. 
  • The suggestions and comments (if any) shall be shared with the author(s) for revision of the manuscript accordingly.
  • The section editor may consider the revised submission for peer review without changes, request minor or major changes from the author(s), or reject it outright.
  • If the article is considered for the peer-review process, the manuscript shall be forwarded to an assistant editor (sub-editor) for necessary editing and formatting before sending it to the reviewers.
  • The formatted manuscript shall be forwarded for double-blind peer review to obtain at least two positive reports from experts (subject specialists) of international repute.
  • It shall be ensured that reviewers are selected based on the expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript.
  • The section editor shall seek to have at least one reviewer from the country or region that is the focus of the manuscript.
  • The peer reviewers shall specifically evaluate the manuscript for the quality of the research, focusing on its relevance, originality, and innovation.
  • The author(s) must incorporate all the required changes as per the suggestions and comments of the reviewers. In case of any disagreement with the comments of experts, the author(s) shall provide clarification(s) or explanation(s) for each observation or comment of disagreement.
  • The editorial team shall review the revised and updated version of the manuscript to validate and verify the required changes based on the reviewers' suggestions and comments.
  • The Editor may request an expert opinion from an editorial adviser(s) to resolve any differences or conflicting reports.
  • The journal editor decides to publish or reject the revised and updated manuscript.

 

Reviewer Guidelines

The peer-reviewers shall evaluate an article based on the following ten (10) principles and standards, a minimum requirement for accepting a manuscript. 

  1. The title is brief, precise, and appropriate to the content and purpose of the article. (Example: Active verbs are used instead of complex noun-based phrases. It is around 12 to 15 words long and summarises the main idea or ideas of the study.)
  2. The abstract accurately describes the paper's content. (For example, it presents a concise overview of the research problem, study purpose, research design, key findings, and is approximately 180-200 words long.)
  3. The keywords are sufficient and appropriate. (Example: It does not use words or phrases from the title and supplements the title's content. These are descriptive, represent key concepts and/or nouns, and are 8-10 words.)
  4. The introduction provides an overview of a general subject area to a particular topic of inquiry. (Example: It describes the purpose, scope, context, significance, background, hypothesis(es), question(s), brief methodology, outcome(s), and an outline of the remaining structure and organisation of the article.)
  5. The literature review provides an overview of the sources explored and demonstrates how the study fits within the broader field of research. (Example: It provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of the sources explored regarding the research problem(s) being investigated.)
  6. The research methodology is adequately described. (Example: It represents the actions taken to investigate the research problem and the rationale for applying the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyse the information applied to understanding the problem.)
  7. The results are clearly presented. (Example: It reports the study's findings based on the methodology(ies) applied and in a logical sequence, without bias or interpretation, if the data is generated from the author’s research.)
  8. The discussion is clear, and the findings are accurately analysed. (Example: It interprets and describes the significance of findings in light of what was already known about the research problem. It explains new understandings or insights that have emerged based on studying the issue. It is connected to the introduction through research questions or hypothesis(es) and the literature review.)
  9. The findings support the conclusion. (Example: It helps readers understand why the research is relevant to them. It synthesises key points and, if applicable, recommends new areas for future research.
  10. English Language and Style meet the standard. (Example: It is clear, unambiguous, and objective, i.e., it provides reasons and evidence. It employs active voice, with a minimum level of passive voice used where necessary. It mainly uses ordinary language rather than complicated expressions and technical terminologies.)

 

[Last updated: 21-Mar-2025]