Peer Review Process
IJIRMS follows a double-blind peer review process designed to provide an impartial, rigorous, confidential, and consistent assessment of submitted manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
Editorial Screening
All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to
assess their scope, originality, scientific relevance, ethical requirements,
completeness, and compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines. Manuscripts
that are unsuitable for the journal or do not meet essential requirements may
be declined before external peer review.
Editorial Assessment and
Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to
an appropriate editor for further assessment. Suitable manuscripts are
evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject
expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, independence, and
absence of relevant conflicts of interest.
Double-Blind Review
Reviewers independently assess the manuscript for
originality, scientific and methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity,
significance, validity of results, interpretation, and adequacy of references.
Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to assist the
editor and authors.
Peer-Review Exceptions
Original Research Articles, Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses, Narrative Reviews, Mini Reviews, Brief Reports, Case Reports,
Case Series, Clinical Images, Protocols, and Methods/Technical Articles are
subject to external peer review. Editorials, invited Commentaries,
Perspectives, and Letters to the Editor may undergo editorial assessment and
may be sent for external peer review when considered appropriate by the Editor.
All editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or
designated editor, and the applicable review process is determined according to
the nature and purpose of the submission.
Editorial Decision
The handling editor considers the reviewers' reports
together with the editor's own assessment. If the reports are substantially
inconsistent or additional expertise is required, an additional independent
reviewer may be consulted. The editor may make a decision of Accept, Minor
Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Revision and Re-evaluation
Authors may be required to submit a revised manuscript
together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. Revised
manuscripts may undergo further editorial or external review depending on the
nature and extent of the revisions.
Confidentiality and Conflicts
of Interest
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts
and must not use, share, or disclose unpublished information obtained during
review. Reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflict of interest and
decline the assignment where appropriate. Editors with a conflict of interest
will not participate in the evaluation or final decision.
Editorial Independence
Final publication decisions are based on the scientific
quality, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, and overall merit of the
manuscript. Editorial decisions are independent of APC payment, waiver
requests, institutional affiliation, or the author's ability to pay.
Peer review does not guarantee acceptance. The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for the editorial decision and integrity of the peer-review process.