Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Model

IJMORA may use single-blind, double-blind, or editorially managed peer review depending on journal policy, article type, subject area, manuscript sensitivity, and reviewer availability. The review model is intended to protect fairness, reduce bias, and support reliable editorial decisions.

Regardless of review model, all reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, respectfully, confidentially, and professionally.

Technical Screening Before Review

Before a manuscript is sent to peer review, IJMORA may conduct technical screening to check file completeness, manuscript structure, metadata accuracy, plagiarism similarity, AI-writing indicators, grammar quality, reference quality, ethical declarations, figure quality, and submission compliance.

Technical screening reports are advisory. They help editors decide whether the manuscript is ready for peer review, needs correction, requires clarification, or should be rejected before review.

Reviewer Selection

Editors select reviewers based on expertise, publication history, subject knowledge, availability, independence, and conflict-of-interest considerations. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but editors are not required to invite them.

• Reviewers should have relevant subject expertise.
• Reviewers must not have clear conflicts of interest.
• Reviewers should be able to complete the review within the requested time.
• Reviewers should provide constructive and evidence-based comments.
• Editors may invite additional reviewers when needed.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, detailed, respectful, and constructive assessments. They should evaluate the manuscript based on scientific merit and should not use confidential manuscript information for personal, academic, commercial, or competitive advantage.

Reviewers should decline the invitation if they lack expertise, have a conflict of interest, cannot meet the deadline, or cannot provide an unbiased review.

Review Criteria

Reviewers may assess the manuscript using several scholarly criteria depending on article type and discipline.

• Originality and novelty.
• Relevance to IJMORA scope.
• Clarity of research objectives.
• Soundness of methodology.
• Quality and reliability of data.
• Appropriateness of analysis and interpretation.
• Strength of discussion and conclusion.
• Ethical compliance.
• Accuracy of references.
• Quality of figures and tables.
• Contribution to the field.
• Language clarity and readability.

Editorial Decisions

Editors make final decisions based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, journal scope, ethical considerations, author responses, technical screening results, and editorial judgment.

• Desk rejection before review.
• Send for peer review.
• Minor revision.
• Major revision.
• Accept after satisfactory review.
• Reject after review.
• Withdraw or investigate when ethical concerns arise.

Revision and Re-Review

When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a response-to-reviewers document explaining changes point by point. Editors may evaluate the revision directly or send it for additional review when necessary.

Major revisions, disputed responses, new data, significant methodological changes, or unresolved reviewer concerns may require further peer review.

Confidentiality and Data Protection

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use manuscript content outside the authorized review process.

Reviewer reports, confidential comments, editorial discussions, and unpublished research data must be protected within the journal system.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any conflict of interest that could affect impartial judgment. Conflicts may include financial relationships, personal relationships, institutional connections, academic competition, recent collaboration, supervisory relationships, or direct involvement with the work.

Editors may replace reviewers, reassign manuscripts, or request additional independent reviews when conflicts are identified.

Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

If reviewers or editors identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, authorship problems, unethical research, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts, the manuscript may be paused for investigation.

IJMORA may request clarification, supporting data, ethical approval documents, author explanations, or institutional input when necessary.

Use of AI in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must protect manuscript confidentiality when using digital or AI-assisted tools. Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, and confidential editorial materials must not be uploaded to public AI tools unless explicitly permitted by IJMORA policy and compatible with confidentiality requirements.

AI tools may support language polishing of reviewer comments, but the scientific evaluation and recommendation must come from the human reviewer.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal decisions when they believe a significant procedural error, misunderstanding, or scientific misinterpretation occurred. Appeals should be evidence-based, respectful, and focused on the manuscript.

Appeals do not guarantee reversal of the original decision. IJMORA may assign the case to another editor or reviewer if necessary.

Final Peer Review Statement

IJMORA uses peer review as a quality-control and scholarly improvement process. The purpose of peer review is not only to filter manuscripts but also to help authors improve clarity, reliability, scientific rigor, and contribution to knowledge.

By participating in peer review, authors, reviewers, and editors help protect research integrity and strengthen the credibility of scholarly publishing.