IJRGP

International Journal & Research Global Publisher

Menu

Peer Review & Editorial Process — IJRGP

IJRGP believes that rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review is the bedrock of trustworthy scholarship. Our publisher-level peer review and editorial process ensures every manuscript is evaluated by independent, qualified experts; editorial decisions rest with academically accountable editors; and policies for conflicts, misconduct, and appeals are clear and consistently applied across all journals in the IJRGP family.

Scope of this policy

This page describes the publisher-level standards that apply to all IJRGP journals. Individual journals may state a specific peer review model (double-blind, single-blind, or open peer review) on their journal home page; where a journal does not specify otherwise, IJRGP recommends double-blind review as the default. Any deviation must be explicit and visible to authors at submission.

Default: Double-Blind

Editorial governance & independence

  • Editorial independence is sacrosanct. Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief and team based on peer review and scholarly merit. The publisher does not interfere.
  • The editorial office manages workflow, communicates with authors and reviewers, and supports the editorial team administratively.
Publisher → Editor-in-Chief → Editorial Office → Reviewers

Peer review models (what we use and why)

  • Double-Blind (recommended default): reviewer and author identities concealed.
  • Single-Blind: reviewer anonymous, author identity known to reviewer.
  • Open Peer Review (optional): reviewer names and/or reports published alongside the article.

Each journal must clearly state its chosen model on the home page and submission portal.

Reviewer selection and responsibilities

  • Selection criteria: subject expertise, relevant publications, no recent collaboration, no conflict of interest.
  • Reviewer responsibilities: provide timely, constructive, objective, and confidential reports; declare conflicts; suggest missed literature; check ethics, data availability, reproducibility.
What we expect from reviewers:
  • Timeliness
  • Constructive feedback
  • Objectivity
  • Confidentiality

Step-by-step Editorial Workflow

1

Submission receipt & check

Editorial office confirms files, formats, compliance with checklist.

0–2 days
2

Initial editorial assessment

Editor checks scope, novelty, ethics. Desk decision

0–2 days
3

Reviewer selection

2–3 qualified reviewers invited, free of conflicts.

0–2 days
4

Peer review

Reviewers provide structured reports & recommendations.

0–6 days
5

Editorial decision

Decision letter with anonymised reports sent to author.

0–2 days
6

Revision & re-review

Authors resubmit with tracked changes; may go back to reviewers.

Variable
7

Final acceptance & production

Copy-editing, proofing, DOI, and metadata deposition.

—

Editorial Policies

Conflicts of Interest & Recusal Policy

  • Reviewers and editors must declare all potential conflicts (personal, institutional, financial).
  • If a conflict exists, they will be recused and an alternate will be assigned.
  • Editors must not handle manuscripts where personal relationships or financial interests create bias.

Confidentiality & Data Protection

  • Manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential.
  • Materials are shared only with persons directly involved in review and editorial decision unless explicit consent is given (e.g., in open peer review).
  • Personal data are handled per our Privacy Policy.

Use of Screening Tools & Checks

  • Manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and text overlap using recognized tools.
  • Additional checks may include image manipulation screening and statistical review.
  • Manuscripts flagged for serious ethical concerns may be rejected or referred to institutional bodies for investigation.

Editorial Decisions & Policies

Decision Categories — What They Mean

  • Accept: publishable in current form or after minor typographical edits.
  • Minor revision: small clarifications; no new experiments required.
  • Major revision: substantial changes required; likely re-reviewed.
  • Revise & Resubmit: substantial rework required; no guarantee of acceptance.
  • Reject: unsuitable or fails to meet standards.

Appeals, Complaints & Corrections

Special Procedures & Quality Control

  • Rapid/expedited review for urgent cases (editorial discretion).
  • Independent statistical & methodological review for complex analyses.
  • Data & reproducibility checks — raw data, code, or documentation may be requested.

Transparency & Optional Open Review

  • Open peer review only with clear journal policy & author/reviewer consent.
  • Reviewer names/reports published alongside article only when approved.

Recognition for Reviewers & Editorial Contributors

IJRGP supports reviewer certificates, acknowledgements in reports, and integration with reviewer service platforms to ensure recognition and accountability.

FAQ — Peer Review at IJRGP

Can I suggest reviewers?

Yes, up to three independent experts; editors retain discretion.

What if I disagree with reviewers?

Submit a reasoned rebuttal in your appeal or revision letter; editors may seek further review.

Are reviewer reports shared publicly?

Only if open peer review is adopted by the journal or with explicit consent.

Contact for Editorial Process Enquiries

Email: editorial@ijrgp.com

IJRGP commits to a peer review and editorial process that is fair, transparent, and accountable — protecting the integrity of the scholarly record while supporting authors, reviewers, and readers worldwide.

Scroll to Top