Peer Review Process

IJRDO journals follow an editorial assessment and double-blind peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, scholarly contribution, and academic integrity of submitted manuscripts.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is initially assessed by the Editorial Office and/or an appropriate member or committee of the editorial team. The initial assessment considers whether the manuscript:

• falls within the journal's aims and scope;
• meets the journal's basic submission and formatting requirements;
• demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly contribution;
• meets appropriate academic and ethical standards; and
• is suitable for consideration through external peer review.

Manuscripts may be rejected at the initial screening stage if they are outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential editorial or academic requirements, lack sufficient scholarly contribution, raise significant ethical or integrity concerns, or are otherwise unsuitable for publication.

Where appropriate, authors may be invited to make preliminary corrections or revisions before a decision is made regarding external peer review.

IJRDO normally aims to provide an initial editorial decision within 1–2 weeks of submission. This is an indicative timeframe and may vary depending on the journal, subject area, submission volume, and complexity of the initial assessment.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to independent experts with appropriate subject expertise.

IJRDO follows a double-blind peer review system in which, as far as reasonably possible, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another.

Each manuscript sent for external peer review will normally be evaluated by at least two qualified independent reviewers. Depending on the subject matter, complexity of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, or other editorial considerations, the journal may seek additional reviews.

The journal takes reasonable measures to protect the anonymity and confidentiality of authors and reviewers. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized fields or where the research topic, methodology, citations, or other circumstances may make the identity of the authors reasonably apparent.

Authors should therefore avoid including unnecessary identifying information in manuscripts submitted for double-blind review.

The external peer-review process is normally expected to be completed within 4–8 weeks after a manuscript is sent for review. This is an indicative timeframe rather than a guarantee and may vary because of reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revisions to the reviewer pool, or other circumstances.

Editorial Decision

Reviewer reports and recommendations form an important part of the editorial decision-making process. However, reviewers provide recommendations rather than publication decisions.

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorised member of the editorial team acting under the journal's editorial policies.

Editors may request additional reviews or clarification where necessary before reaching a final decision.

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the quality, reliability, originality, and academic integrity of IJRDO publications.

Reviewers are expected to provide a fair, independent, objective, confidential, and constructive assessment of manuscripts.

A reviewer should decline an invitation as soon as reasonably possible if:

• the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise;
• they are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe;
• they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
• they have a personal, professional, financial, academic, or other relationship that could reasonably affect their impartiality; or
• they believe they cannot provide an objective assessment.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not, without appropriate authorization:

• share or distribute the manuscript;
• disclose the contents of the manuscript to others;
• use unpublished information, data, methods, ideas, or findings obtained through the review process for personal or professional benefit;
• copy or retain manuscript material beyond what is reasonably necessary to complete the review;
• discuss the manuscript publicly before publication; or
• use the manuscript for purposes unrelated to the peer-review process.

Reviewers should not independently forward a manuscript to another person for review. If a reviewer believes that assistance from another expert is necessary, they should obtain prior permission from the Editorial Office.

Reviewers should promptly notify the Editor if they identify concerns relating to:

• plagiarism or substantial similarity with previously published work;
• duplicate or simultaneous submission;
• fabrication or falsification of data;
• inappropriate image manipulation;
• authorship or contributorship concerns;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• research ethics or informed-consent concerns, where applicable;
• serious methodological or scholarly deficiencies; or
• other potential breaches of research or publication integrity.

General Review Criteria

IJRDO does not apply a rigid checklist to every manuscript. Reviewers should consider the nature, discipline, methodology, objectives, and purpose of each submission.

Depending on the type of manuscript, reviewers may consider:

• relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
• originality and novelty of the work;
• clarity of the research question, purpose, or objectives;
• adequacy and relevance of the literature review and scholarly context;
• appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
• quality and reliability of the data or evidence, where applicable;
• clarity and accuracy of the presentation of results;
• appropriateness of the analysis and interpretation;
• whether conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence;
• quality and relevance of references;
• organization and structure of the manuscript;
• compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines;
• clarity of language and academic presentation;
• ethical considerations, where applicable;
• potential plagiarism or substantial similarity; and
• the overall scholarly contribution and suitability for publication.

Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that may affect the validity or contribution of the manuscript and minor concerns that can be addressed through clarification, editing, or limited revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or appropriately authorized editorial authority after considering the reviewer reports and the overall editorial assessment.

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

IJRDO considers peer review an essential mechanism for maintaining the quality, reliability, and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Reviewers should provide a fair, independent, detailed, and constructive assessment of the manuscript. Reviews should focus on the scholarly content of the submission rather than on the authors personally.

A useful review should identify both strengths and weaknesses and, where revisions are required, provide clear and practical suggestions that may help authors improve the manuscript.

Reviewers should:

• read the manuscript carefully and objectively;
• assess whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal's aims and scope;
• evaluate the originality and scholarly contribution of the work;
• assess the appropriateness and rigor of the methodology, where applicable;
• identify significant methodological, conceptual, or interpretive concerns;
• provide clear, specific, and constructive comments;
• distinguish major and minor concerns where possible;
• explain the basis for their recommendation;
• avoid offensive, discriminatory, personal, or unnecessarily harsh language;
• identify relevant ethical or publication-integrity concerns;
• notify the Editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified information, or other serious concerns; and
• maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Reviewers are encouraged to write comments clearly and professionally so that they can be understood by authors from different linguistic and academic backgrounds.

Where possible, specific comments should identify relevant sections, pages, tables, figures, or line numbers of the manuscript.

Reviewers should treat authors' work with the same professional respect, fairness, and objectivity that they would expect for their own work.

Reviewer Recommendations

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive revision, subject to any necessary editorial or formatting corrections.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited revisions or clarifications before it can be considered for acceptance.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revisions. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent for further peer review before an editorial decision is reached.

Reject

The manuscript has substantial limitations, does not meet the journal's publication requirements, falls outside the journal's scope, or is otherwise unsuitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final publication decision. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or appropriately authorized editorial authority after consideration of the reviewer reports, manuscript quality, editorial requirements, and relevant ethical or publication-integrity considerations.

Confidentiality and Privacy

All unpublished manuscripts must be treated as confidential.

Authors submit manuscripts with the expectation that their work, ideas, data, methods, and other unpublished information will be protected during the editorial and peer-review process.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must therefore respect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.

Information concerning a manuscript—including its submission, contents, review status, reviewer reports, reviewer identity, editorial discussions, and editorial decision—should not be disclosed to individuals who are not authorized to receive such information.

Reviewers must not:

• share manuscripts with colleagues or other individuals without prior permission;
• distribute unpublished manuscript material;
• use unpublished information, data, methods, or ideas obtained through peer review for their own research or professional benefit;
• publicly discuss the manuscript before publication;
• use manuscript content for purposes unrelated to the review; or
• publish, reproduce, or distribute reviewer comments without appropriate authorization.

Where appropriate and permitted by the Editorial Office, reviewers may be instructed to delete or destroy manuscript copies and related confidential materials after completing the review.

Confidentiality may be appropriately limited where serious allegations of research misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or other significant ethical or publication-integrity concerns require investigation or disclosure to an appropriate authority.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the impartiality of their assessment.

A conflict of interest may arise from, but is not limited to:

• a personal or professional relationship with an author;
• recent collaboration with an author;
• current or recent institutional relationships;
• financial interests;
• direct competition or professional rivalry;
• significant academic or intellectual interests; or
• other circumstances that could reasonably create a risk of bias.

If a conflict of interest could materially affect the reviewer's objectivity, the reviewer should decline the review invitation.

Reviewers should not allow personal opinions about an author, institution, country, research group, discipline, or academic field to influence their assessment.

The review should focus on the manuscript's scholarly quality, methodology, evidence, interpretation, originality, and relevance.

Reviewers should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible if they identify a conflict of interest or an ethical or publication-integrity concern relating to a manuscript.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Because manuscripts submitted for review are confidential, reviewers must not upload or otherwise disclose unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, or confidential manuscript information to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other external AI tools unless expressly authorized by the journal.

Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, and integrity of their reviews, regardless of whether any authorized technological tools are used in preparing them.

AI-generated content must not replace the reviewer's own expert assessment and professional judgment.

Reviewers should disclose any use of AI-assisted tools where required by the journal's policies or the instructions provided with the review invitation.

Editorial Independence and Final Responsibility

Peer reviewers provide independent expert advice to the editorial team. Reviewer recommendations are considered together with the manuscript, editorial assessment, ethical considerations, and other relevant information.

No reviewer recommendation automatically determines the outcome of a manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief or appropriately authorized editorial authority retains responsibility for the final editorial decision and for ensuring that decisions are made fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.

Questions and Ethical Concerns

Questions concerning peer review, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, reviewer conduct, research ethics, or publication integrity should be directed to the relevant IJRDO Editorial Office.

The journal may seek additional information, independent advice, or further review where necessary to resolve significant ethical or publication-integrity concerns.