Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review helps editors evaluate whether a manuscript is suitable for publication in an Impaxon journal. It supports editorial decision-making by obtaining independent expert assessment of the manuscript’s originality, methodology, analysis, interpretation, clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.

Peer review does not replace editorial responsibility. Final decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, handling editor, or another authorised editor according to the journal’s editorial workflow.

2. Peer Review Model

Impaxon journals generally follow a single-blind peer review model. Under this model, reviewers may know the identity of the authors, but reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors unless the journal explicitly states otherwise.

Reviewer comments are shared with authors to support manuscript improvement and editorial transparency. Confidential comments intended only for editors may also be submitted by reviewers.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

Before peer review, each manuscript is assessed by the editorial office or an assigned editor to determine whether it fits the journal’s aims and scope and meets basic scholarly, ethical, and technical requirements.

Manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they are outside the journal scope, lack sufficient originality, contain major methodological weaknesses, fail to meet ethical requirements, or are otherwise unsuitable for the journal.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, methodological knowledge, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. Editors may invite reviewers from academic institutions, research organisations, industry, or professional practice where relevant expertise is demonstrated.

Editors may consider reviewer suggestions provided by authors, but they are not required to use them. Authors may also identify individuals they believe should not review the manuscript, provided that clear reasons are given.

5. Number of Reviewers

Impaxon journals normally seek assessment from at least two independent reviewers for research articles and other peer-reviewed submissions. In some cases, a manuscript may require additional reviewers, especially where reports conflict, specialist expertise is needed, or ethical or methodological concerns require further evaluation.

The editor may make a decision based on the available reports when sufficient expert assessment has been received.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments. They should assess the manuscript’s scholarly contribution, technical quality, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance to the journal.

Reviewers should not use offensive, personal, discriminatory, or unsupported language. Comments should help authors improve the work and help editors reach a fair decision.

7. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use manuscript content for personal advantage or for the benefit of others before publication.

Reviewers must not involve colleagues, students, assistants, or artificial intelligence tools in the review process unless this is permitted by the journal and disclosed to the editor. Responsibility for the review remains with the invited reviewer.

8. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline an invitation or inform the editor if they have any conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. Conflicts may be financial, professional, institutional, personal, academic, or competitive.

Editors must also avoid assigning reviewers where a reasonable concern about independence or objectivity exists.

9. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, rejection, or another appropriate outcome according to the journal’s review form. These recommendations are advisory and do not determine the final decision.

The editor considers reviewer comments, the manuscript itself, journal standards, ethical requirements, and the author’s responses before making a decision.

10. Editorial Decisions After Review

After peer review, the editor may decide to accept the manuscript, request minor revision, request major revision, reject and invite resubmission, or reject the manuscript. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

Where reviewer reports conflict, the editor may evaluate the comments independently, request additional review, consult another editor, or make a decision based on the strength of the evidence provided.

11. Revisions and Further Review

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must respond clearly to each reviewer and editor comment. The revised manuscript may be assessed by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers if necessary.

Authors should identify changes made in the manuscript and provide academic justification where a recommendation has not been followed.

12. Reviewer Recognition

Impaxon values the contribution of reviewers to scholarly publishing. Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged where appropriate and where confidentiality is not compromised.

Reviewer identities are not publicly disclosed unless the journal has a clearly stated open review model or the reviewer has given explicit permission.

13. Misconduct During Peer Review

Concerns about peer review manipulation, fake reviewer identities, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate reviewer conduct, breach of confidentiality, or misuse of manuscript content may lead to rejection, correction, retraction, reviewer removal, or further action according to Impaxon’s publication ethics policies.

14. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal a decision if they believe there was a procedural error, conflict of interest, misunderstanding, or other issue affecting the fairness of the review process. Appeals must provide clear reasons and supporting evidence.

Complaints about peer review conduct are handled according to the Complaints & Appeals Policy.

15. Contact

Questions about peer review procedures may be sent to the relevant journal editorial office or to Impaxon through the official contact details provided on the journal website.