Journal Reviewer Policy

A. Peer Review Model

The International Journal of Science and Innovation (IJSI) follows a double-blind peer-review process. In this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process to ensure objectivity, impartiality, and academic integrity.

Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to confirm its relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, and adherence to submission guidelines. Manuscripts that pass this screening are sent for external peer review.

A minimum of two independent reviewers with subject-matter expertise evaluate each manuscript.

​

B. Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and prior scholarly contributions in relevant fields.

Minimum reviewer requirements include:

• A Master’s degree or higher in a relevant scientific or technical discipline (PhD preferred)

• Active involvement in research, teaching, or industry

• Prior publication experience in peer-reviewed journals

• Demonstrated subject-matter expertise aligned with the manuscript topic

All reviewers are required to declare conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. Reviewers with any financial, personal, or academic conflict related to a submission are excluded from the review process.

​

C. Peer Review Timeline

IJSI is committed to a transparent and efficient review process. Typical timelines are outlined below:

Review StageExpected Timeframe

Initial editorial screening5–7 days

Reviewer assignment3–5 days

Peer review period2–4 weeks

Author revision period1–3 weeks

Final editorial decision5–7 days

Publication after acceptance1–2 weeks

Timelines may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

​

D. Editorial Decision-Making Process

Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit and reviewer recommendations. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using standardized criteria, including:

• Scientific originality and novelty

• Methodological rigor and reproducibility

• Ethical compliance

• Quality of data analysis and interpretation

• Clarity and organization of presentation

• Relevance to the journal’s scope

Based on reviewer feedback, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Associate Editors.

​

E. Ethics, Integrity, and Compliance

IJSI adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and research integrity. The journal follows principles consistent with:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

• Best practices in scholarly publishing

All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening prior to peer review. Ethical approval and informed consent are required for studies involving human participants or animals, where applicable.

Cases of ethical misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submission, may result in rejection, retraction, or reporting to affiliated institutions.

​

F. Editorial Independence and Transparency

Editorial decisions at IJSI are made independently of any financial considerations. Submission or publication fees, if applicable, do not influence the outcome of the peer-review process.

Reviewers and editors operate independently and are not compensated based on acceptance outcomes. All peer-review records are archived internally and may be audited for quality assurance and transparency purposes.

IJSI does not guarantee manuscript acceptance.

​

G. Reviewer Recognition and Accountability

IJSI values the contributions of its peer reviewers. With reviewer consent, the journal may publish an annual acknowledgment of reviewers who contributed to the peer-review process.

Reviewer performance is periodically assessed to ensure review quality, timeliness, and ethical compliance. Reviewers who consistently fail to meet standards may be removed from the reviewer pool.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal request with justification. Appeals are reviewed independently by senior editors.