Peer Review Policies

International Research Publishing Group

Transparent review. Rigorous standards. Respect for authors, reviewers, and the scholarly record.

Quick summary

IRPG journals use rigorous, COPE-aligned review practices chosen to ensure fairness, integrity, and transparency. Each journal states its adopted review model on its landing page; publisher support and oversight ensure consistency across titles.

Peer Review Policy — models

We support three peer review models. The model applied to a manuscript is declared on the target journal’s landing page.

Single-blind review — Reviewers know authors’ identities; authors do not know reviewer identities.
Double-blind review — Neither reviewers nor authors see each other’s identities; manuscripts must be anonymized for review.
Open review — Reviewer names and reports may be published alongside the article with reviewer consent; reviewer anonymity may be retained upon request when justified.

IRPG’s stance: choose the model that best serves the discipline and community. The chosen model for each journal is indicated clearly on the journal page and in the submission system. (See Our Journals · specific journal page · Submit Manuscript)

Peer review workflow & timelines

A clear, four-phase workflow guides every submission. Timelines are estimates; actual durations vary by discipline and reviewer availability.

Phase 1 — Initial checks (0-2 business days)

Administrative completeness, scope fit, plagiarism screening, ethics declarations, and file format checks.
Outcome: proceed to external review or editorial desk decision.

Phase 2 — Reviewer selection & invitation (0-2 business days)

Editor selects ≥2 independent expert reviewers (or as specified by the journal). Potential conflicts of interest are screened. Suggested reviewers from authors are considered but verified for independence. (See For Reviewers)

Phase 3 — External peer review (0-6 days typical per round)

Reviewers submit structured reports using the publisher reviewer form. Reviewers recommend: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, or Reject. Editors may request additional reviewers if reports conflict. (See Peer Reviewer Resources)

Phase 4 — Editorial decision & revisions (1–4 days per decision)

Editor synthesizes reports and issues decision. Authors revise and resubmit; revised manuscripts may undergo another review round. Final production follows acceptance.

Overall typical timeline: initial check to first decision commonly 10-12 days; times vary by journal and field. (See For Authors)

Editorial decision process

Decisions are made by the handling editor in consultation with Associate Editors and the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewer reports, ethical checks, and fit with journal scope.

Decision categories

Accept (no changes required) — rare; used when paper meets all standards.
Minor revision — authors address specific, limited points; rapid re-review possible.
Major revision — substantial changes required; may return to reviewers.
Reject — encourage resubmission — research valid but needs major re-work; treated as a new submission if resubmitted.
Reject — out of scope, poor quality, or ethical concerns.

Desk rejection

If a manuscript fails scope checks, lacks required ethics statements, or shows severe methodological issues, the Editor may desk-reject without external review. Authors receive a clear rationale and may be guided to more suitable journals. (See For Authors)

Appeals & complaints

Authors may appeal decisions by submitting a formal appeal within 30 days, citing specific grounds and evidence. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or an independent committee. (See Publication Ethics & Misconduct)

Reviewer selection, conflicts & confidentiality

Reviewer selection

Editors choose reviewers based on expertise, prior performance, and absence of competing interests. Reviewer diversity (geographic, disciplinary) is encouraged.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must declare conflicts (recent collaboration, shared funding, close personal relationship, direct competition) and recuse themselves if conflicted. Authors must declare conflicts in submission.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. Material in a manuscript may not be used for personal advantage or disclosed to others without editor permission. (See Publication Ethics & Misconduct)

Peer reviewer resources

We support reviewers with concise tools and recognition.

Resources provided

Reviewer guidelines — clear expectations, scoring rubric, and confidentiality rules. (See For Reviewers)
Reviewer form template — structured sections: Summary of manuscript, Major strengths, Major weaknesses, Specific comments by line/section, Recommendation, Confidential comments to the editor. (See sample below.)
Quick-start checklist — how to produce a constructive, timely review.
Training materials — short guides on constructive feedback, spotting plagiarism, and evaluating statistics/methods. (See For Reviewers)
Recognition — certificates on request, reviewer acknowledgment on journal pages (if opted in), and integration with third-party reviewer recognition services where available (e.g., Publons). (See For Reviewers)

Reviewer conduct & expectations

Reviewers commit to:

Timeliness (respond to invitation within 0-2 days; complete review in agreed time).
Constructive, evidence-based feedback focused on improvement.
Honest detection and reporting of ethical or methodological concerns.
Declaring conflicts and recusing when necessary.
Maintaining confidentiality.

Editors may remove reviewers who repeatedly fail to meet standards or deadlines. (See For Reviewers)

Handling suspected ethics breaches

If reviewers or editors suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or other misconduct, IRPG follows COPE procedures:

Initial assessment by Editor and Publisher.
Request for author response where appropriate.
Investigation may involve institution(s).
Outcomes can include correction, retraction, or rejection; findings are communicated transparently. (See Publication Ethics & Misconduct)

Transparency, open reports & data

Where journals permit or require open review, reviewer reports and author responses may be published with the article (with reviewers’ consent). Authors are asked to provide data availability statements and links to underlying data to support reproducibility. (See Open Access)

Timely communication & appeals

Authors receive clear status updates via the submission system. If delays occur, authors may contact the editorial office (contact@irpublishinggroup.com). Appeals follow a formal process described on Publication Ethics & Misconduct.

Links & downloads

Reviewer Guidelines PDF — (See For Reviewers)
Reviewer Form Template (download) — (See Resources & Downloads)
Appeals & Complaints Procedure — (See Publication Ethics & Misconduct)
Submission system — Start Submission (See Submit Manuscript)

Contact

Editorial enquiries about peer review: editorial@irpublishinggroup.com
Reviewer support, recognition queries, technical issues with reviewer portal: contact@irpublishinggroup.com
(See Contact)

Footer note

IRPG’s peer review policies are applied consistently across journals and linked to publisher-level ethics, data, and licensing policies to ensure integrity and discoverability.