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 is correct.

The review policy of IDEA-PG journals involves an editorial review as well as a peer review of the manuscripts. If accepted by the editorial team, the manuscript is processed for double-blind peer review by the relevant experts of international repute. Prior to the approval for publication, a manuscript must be accepted by at least three experts in the relevant field. The identity of the author(s) shall be kept secret from the peer-reviewers and vice versa in the peer-review processes. The peer-reviewers may know the authors' identity only after the manuscript's publication.

  • The manuscripts submitted to the IDEA-PG journals are assigned to a section editor responsible for processing them according to the journal policy and procedure. 
  • 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 processes without changes, ask the author(s) for minor changes or major changes, or reject it outrightly.
  • In case 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 at least three local/foreign experts (subject specialists) of international repute.
  • It shall be ensured that the reviewers are selected according to 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 according to the suggestions and comments of reviewers. In case of difference(s), if any, the author(s) shall record clarification(s) or explanation(s) for each observation or comment of disagreement.
  • The editorial team shall examine the revised and updated version of the manuscript to validate and verify the required changes following the reviewers' suggestions and comments.
  • The Editor may request an expert opinion from an editorial adviser(s) to resolve the difference(s) or conflicting report(s), if any.
  • 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/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 content of the paper. (For example, it discusses a compact view of the research problem, purpose of study, research design, and key findings and is 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 contents. 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/organisation of the article.)
  5. The Literature Review gives an overview of the sources explored and demonstrates how the study fits within the larger field of the study. (Example: It provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of sources explored about the research problem(s) being investigated.)
  6. 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. Results are clearly presented. (Example: It reports the findings of the study based upon the methodology(ies) being applied and in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation if 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 problem. It is connected to the introduction through research questions or hypothesis(es) and the literature review.)
  9. The findings of the results support the conclusion. (Example: It helps the readers understand why the research should matter 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 gives reasons and evidence. It uses active voice, and a minimum level of passive voice is used where required. It mainly uses ordinary language rather than complicated expressions and technical terminologies.)

 

[Last updated: 9-Nov-2024]