Peer Review Process for the International Journal of Advance Scientific Research

The International Journal of Advance Scientific Research adheres to a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of the research we publish. Our process is designed to facilitate constructive feedback and uphold high academic standards.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

• Manuscript Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through our online submission system.
• Initial Screening: Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal’s scope and formatting guidelines. Manuscripts that do not comply will be returned to the authors for revision.

2. Peer Review Assignment

• Reviewer Selection: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to two or more expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and availability.
• Double-Blind Review: The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review.

3. Review Process

• Review Criteria: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including:
  • Originality and significance of the research
  • Methodological rigor
  • Clarity and coherence of the writing
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Adequate referencing of existing literature
• Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations, which may include acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.

4. Decision Making

• Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editorial team makes a decision regarding the manuscript. Possible outcomes include:
  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no further changes required.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes, which the authors must address before final acceptance.
  • Major Revisions: Significant changes are needed; the manuscript may be resubmitted for further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

5. Communication with Authors

• Notification: Authors are notified of the editorial decision and provided with reviewers' comments.
• Revision Submission: If revisions are required, authors should address all feedback and submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response letter outlining how they addressed each comment.

6. Final Review

• Revised Manuscript Evaluation: Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the editorial team and, if necessary, sent back to the original reviewers for further assessment.
• Final Decision: Once the revisions have been satisfactorily addressed, the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

7. Publication Ethics

• Confidentiality: All participants in the peer review process (authors, reviewers, and editors) must maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its content.
• Integrity: Reviewers are expected to provide unbiased and constructive feedback, and any conflicts of interest must be disclosed.