Open Peer Review Policy

Open Peer Review Policy of the International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR)

Advanced Open Peer Review System

The International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR) employs a transparent and rigorous “Advanced Open Peer Review” system. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed by a minimum of two experts in the relevant field to ensure high-quality evaluations. Our Open Peer Review system allows for the identities of authors and reviewers to be disclosed, fostering transparency. Furthermore, all reviewers and academic editors involved in the process are listed in the “Peer Review History” section of each published paper, accessible on its first page.

To enhance transparency further, all review comments, authors’ responses, manuscript versions, and editorial decisions are published alongside the article in the “Review History” section. This approach prevents any potential undue influence from any party involved in the review process, including editors, reviewers, or authors. This system not only ensures accountability but also gives reviewers the recognition they deserve. However, if a reviewer prefers anonymity, their feedback will be published as an “Anonymous Reviewer Report.”

Supporting Scientific Advancement

At IJAR, we strongly believe that peer-review files hold immense value for the continuity and advancement of science. By publishing peer-review reports with papers, we aim to save future researchers significant time in avoiding common errors. Therefore, we provide all relevant documents, including the original manuscript, reviewer comments, revised manuscripts, and editorial notes, in the “Review History” section of published articles.

Our peer review system focuses on enhancing the quality of submitted manuscripts. We document and publish the improvement metrics, such as average scores out of 10 assigned during the initial and final review stages. This process underscores our commitment to transparency, providing readers with a clear understanding of each manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. By identifying and addressing weaknesses, we aim to promote the responsible application of research findings and minimize the risk of misuse.

Reviewer Selection Process

Selecting qualified reviewers is critical to maintaining the high standards of IJAR. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, publication history, affiliations, and reputation in the field. Authors can request the exclusion of specific reviewers if justified. IJAR strives to avoid reviewers with conflicts of interest, slow response times, or insufficient evaluation rigor.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Initial Review: Reviewer comments are typically sent to authors within three weeks of submission. The editorial decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) is based on these evaluations.
2. Revised Submission: Authors are encouraged to submit revisions within 7-15 days for minor corrections or up to 8 weeks for major revisions requiring additional experiments or analysis.
3. Re-review: Reviewers may be asked to assess revised manuscripts to ensure a thorough evaluation process.
4. Final Decision: The editor makes the final decision based on reviewer feedback. Disagreements among reviewers are resolved by the editorial team to ensure fairness.

To support the rapid dissemination of research findings, IJAR aims to publish manuscripts within two weeks of submission. In exceptional cases, delays may occur, and authors will be informed accordingly. Manuscripts with ground-breaking findings receive priority for expedited review and publication.

General Guidelines for Peer Review

Ethical Practices: IJAR strongly opposes duplicate publications and plagiarism. Reviewers should report any unethical practices with supporting evidence.

1. Reproducibility: Studies replicating previously published research must clearly declare this intent and provide new datasets.
2. Technical Soundness: Manuscripts are evaluated for robustness and technical accuracy rather than novelty alone.
3. Constructive Feedback: Reviewers must provide honest, constructive, and actionable comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.
4. Materials and Methods: Reviewers should assess the appropriateness and reproducibility of the methods described.
5. Results and Discussion: Reviewers should ensure the data are robust, well-controlled, and adequately supported by relevant references. Statistical analyses, if applicable, must be appropriate and thorough.
6. Conclusion: Conclusions should be unbiased, data-driven, and adequately supported by the manuscript’s findings.
7. References: All cited references should be current, relevant, and adequate. Reviewers may suggest additional references if you need them.

Appeals Process

Authors have the right to appeal rejected manuscripts. Appeals must be submitted in writing to www.journalijar.com with the subject line “Appeal.” Appeals should include the manuscript reference number, detailed reasons for the appeal, and point-by-point responses to reviewers’ or editors’ comments. While appeals are considered carefully, priority is given to new submissions. If an appeal is rejected, further appeals will not be entertained, and the manuscript may not be submitted elsewhere during the appeal process.

Commitment to Integrity

IJAR is dedicated to promoting integrity in research and publication. In cases of suspected misconduct, we reserve the right to re-review manuscripts at any stage before publication. We discourage any attempts by authors to contact reviewers or vice versa to influence the review process.

We extend our deepest gratitude to our reviewers and editors for their invaluable contributions to maintaining the high standards of IJAR. Your expertise and dedication are the cornerstone of our journal’s success.