Peer Review Policy

1. Overview of Peer Review Process:

  • Triple-Blind Peer Review: SIPJ follows a Triple-blind peer review process, meaning both the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This ensures impartiality and eliminates bias in the evaluation of submissions.
  • External Reviewers: Articles are evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers who are experts in the field of the article’s topic. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience.
  • Editorial Oversight: In addition to the peer reviewers, the editorial team (including the Chief Editor and Associate Editors) oversees the review process to ensure that articles meet the journal's academic standards.

2. Submission Evaluation:

  • Initial Screening: Upon submission, the article is first screened by the editorial team for adherence to submission guidelines, relevance to the journal's scope, and basic academic quality. Articles that do not meet these criteria may be rejected before undergoing peer review.
  • Peer Review Invitation: If the article passes the initial screening, the editorial team invites reviewers based on their expertise. The invitation includes the manuscript, review guidelines, and deadlines for the review process.
  • Reviewer Criteria: Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, publication record, and academic standing. They must not have conflicts of interest with the authors or the manuscript.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Objective Evaluation: Reviewers are expected to provide objective, unbiased feedback on the manuscript, focusing on the quality, relevance, originality, and scientific rigor of the work.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. They are not allowed to share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers must complete their evaluation within the time frame specified by the journal, typically 2-3 weeks. Delays must be communicated to the editorial team.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, constructive comments to help authors improve their manuscripts. Suggestions should be clear and focused on improving the quality of the research.
  • Recommendations: At the end of the review, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's standards and is ready for publication without significant revisions.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes or clarifications, but the review is largely positive.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards, and publication is not recommended.

4. Author's Responsibilities:

  • Revisions: If revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. The response should clearly indicate how each reviewer’s comment has been addressed.
  • Timeliness: Authors should submit their revisions within the specified time frame. Failure to do so may result in rejection of the manuscript.
  • Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their submission is original and free of plagiarism. The journal uses plagiarism detection software to screen submissions.
  • Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the review process.

5. Ethics in Peer Review:

  • Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers and authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should recuse themselves from evaluating manuscripts if they have any financial, personal, or professional relationship with the authors or the research.
  • Bias: The editorial team takes steps to prevent any bias in the peer review process, including managing conflicts of interest and ensuring that all decisions are based solely on academic merit.
  • Duplicate Publication: Manuscripts submitted to SIPJ must not have been previously published or under consideration elsewhere. Authors are required to disclose prior submissions or publications that overlap with the submitted work.

6. Transparency and Feedback:

  • Reviewer Comments: Authors will receive the reviewers’ comments along with the editor’s decision. Reviewer identities will remain confidential unless reviewers choose to reveal themselves.
  • Appeal Process: If authors disagree with the review decision, they may appeal to the Chief Editor. The appeal should be based on scientific merit and must be accompanied by a justification for why the decision should be reconsidered.
  • Editorial Decision: The editorial team makes the final decision on whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected. The decision is based on reviewer feedback, the quality of the manuscript, and its alignment with the journal's scope.

7. Review Process Duration:

  • The typical review process takes 4-6 weeks from submission to final decision. This may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.

8. Ethics in Publishing:

  • The journal supports transparency in the review process, ensures that authors' rights are respected, and takes necessary actions in case of unethical behavior (such as plagiarism, falsification of data, etc.).

9. Open Peer Review (Optional):

  • SIPJ may, at its discretion, implement an open peer review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are disclosed. This practice may be used for specific issues or articles, but it is not the standard process.