Peer Review Process

1. Peer Review Model

The Journal applies external double-blind peer review.

Under this model:

• authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers;
• reviewers are not informed of the identities of the authors during the review process;
• the manuscript is assessed by two independent reviewers;
• reviewers provide reasoned scholarly assessments and recommendations;
• reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not replace editorial judgement.

The Editorial Office and the competent editorial authority may retain information necessary to administer the review process, verify reviewer independence, manage conflicts of interest, and maintain appropriate editorial records.

Reviewer reports and information identifying reviewers are treated as confidential editorial records.

Reviewer reports may be communicated to authors in anonymised form as part of the editorial and revision process. Such communication does not disclose the reviewer’s identity and does not remove the confidential status of the peer-review record.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Before external peer review, each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment.

The assessment may be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and/or a designated member of the Editorial Board.

The assessment may consider:

• consistency with the Journal’s Aims and Scope;
• scholarly relevance;
• apparent contribution to knowledge;
• basic academic quality;
• methodological adequacy sufficient to justify external review;
• completeness of the submission;
• compliance with essential submission and formal requirements;
• originality and similarity-screening information;
• potential research-integrity or publication-ethics concerns;
• suitability for external peer review.

The purpose of the initial assessment is to determine whether there are grounds for proceeding to peer review, requesting clarification or correction before review, or recommending desk rejection.

Where the initial assessment is conducted by a designated member of the Editorial Board, that person may provide findings and recommendations, but the final decision to reject a manuscript without external peer review is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, editorial authority is transferred in accordance with the Journal’s Editorial Policies.

Related: Editorial Policies  ·  Publication Ethics

3. Eligibility for External Peer Review

A scholarly manuscript that successfully completes initial editorial assessment and remains under consideration for publication is submitted to external peer review.

Such a manuscript is reviewed by two independent reviewers.

The Journal does not use initial editorial assessment as a substitute for external peer review.

A manuscript cannot receive a final Accept decision solely on the basis of internal editorial assessment.

Where a manuscript does not proceed to external peer review because it is subject to desk rejection, the manuscript is not accepted for publication.

4. Reviewer Selection and Independence

The Editor-in-Chief selects or approves reviewers.

Members of the Editorial Board may assist in identifying suitable reviewers where relevant subject expertise is required.

Reviewer selection must support both independence and the integrity of the double-blind peer-review process.

Before appointment, the Editorial Office or competent editorial authority checks reasonably available information concerning the reviewer’s current institutional affiliation and identifiable professional or collaborative relationships with the authors (including, where available, the current institutional affiliations of the author(s) and prospective reviewer; ORCID records; publication profiles; co-authorship history; known participation in the same research project; known supervisory, student–supervisor, or mentor–mentee relationships; and relevant information already available in the Journal’s editorial records).

A reviewer must not be currently affiliated with the same institution as any author of the manuscript.

Reviewers are additionally required to disclose any relevant conflict of interest known to them that may not be apparent from publicly or editorially available information.

Institutional separation does not by itself establish independence. Financial, professional, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, personal, or other interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality must also be considered.

Reviewer selection should also take into account:

• appropriate scholarly expertise;
• ability to assess the subject and methodology of the manuscript;
• ability to conduct the review objectively and confidentially;
• suitability to provide a reasoned scholarly assessment.

If, during double-blind peer review, a reviewer identifies or reasonably suspects the identity of an author and becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must promptly inform the Journal and must not continue the assessment unless the competent editorial authority determines that continued participation is appropriate.

Where a relevant conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the invitation or withdraw from the review.

The Editor-in-Chief or other competent non-conflicted editorial authority may replace a reviewer where independence or suitability cannot reasonably be ensured.

Related: Review Ethics  ·  Guidelines for Reviewers

5. Double-Blind Anonymity

The Journal uses a double-blind model in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during peer review.

Authors are expected to provide a manuscript suitable for double-blind assessment and to avoid unnecessary identifying information where anonymisation is required by the Journal’s submission procedure.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors for purposes unrelated to legitimate scholarly assessment.

Where a reviewer believes that they have identified an author and that this knowledge could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality, the reviewer must inform the Editorial Office.

Double-blind anonymity does not prevent the Editorial Office or competent editorial authority from holding information necessary for the administration, documentation, and integrity of the peer-review process.

6. Reviewer Assessment and Manuscript Review Form

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript within the scope of their academic competence.

The assessment may include consideration of:

• originality and scholarly contribution;
• relevance to the Journal’s scope;
• methodological adequacy;
• coherence of research design and analysis;
• reliability of evidence and conclusions;
• engagement with relevant scholarly literature;
• clarity and organisation of the manuscript;
• adequacy of references and citation practices;
• ethical or research-integrity issues relevant to the work;
• revisions that may be necessary before publication.

The Journal uses an approved Manuscript Review Form as a structured instrument for recording the reviewer’s scholarly assessment and recommendation.

The form supports consistency and documentation but does not limit the reviewer’s ability to provide additional substantive comments where appropriate.

A reviewer report should contain sufficient scholarly reasoning to explain the reviewer’s assessment.

7. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend an appropriate editorial outcome or identify revisions they consider necessary.

Reviewer recommendations are scholarly advice to the Journal and are not binding editorial decisions.

An unsupported recommendation such as “Accept” or “Reject”, without sufficient scholarly reasoning, should not by itself be treated as an adequate basis for editorial decision-making.

The Editor-in-Chief considers reviewer reports together with:

• the manuscript;
• the reasoning presented by the reviewers;
• methodological and scholarly considerations;
• applicable Journal policies;
• author responses and revisions, where applicable;
• relevant research-integrity or publication-ethics concerns.

The final editorial decision may differ from an individual reviewer recommendation where the available information provides a sufficient scholarly basis for a different conclusion.

8. Research-Integrity Concerns Raised During Peer Review

Where a reviewer identifies a possible concern involving plagiarism, inappropriate overlap, fabrication, falsification, unreliable data, citation manipulation, authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, peer-review manipulation, inappropriate generative-AI use, or another research-integrity or publication-ethics matter, the concern should be reported confidentially to the handling editor.

Reviewers are not responsible for independently investigating allegations of misconduct.

The existence of a concern does not itself establish that misconduct occurred.

The Editorial Office and competent editorial authority assess the matter under the Journal’s applicable Publication Ethics procedure and may request clarification or supporting information where necessary.

Related: Publication Ethics

9. Divergent Reviewer Recommendations

Different scholarly assessments may legitimately arise during peer review.

A difference between the recommendations of two reviewers does not automatically require appointment of a third reviewer.

Where the reviewer reports substantially diverge, the Editor-in-Chief considers:

• the reasoning contained in each report;
• the scholarly and methodological issues raised;
• the manuscript itself;
• the relevance and expertise reflected in the assessments;
• author explanations or responses, where applicable;
• applicable editorial and ethical requirements.

Where the two available reports provide a sufficient basis for reliable editorial judgement, the Editor-in-Chief may make an editorial decision without seeking another review.

Where the Editor-in-Chief considers that the reports do not provide a sufficient basis for a reliable decision, an additional independent reviewer may be appointed.

The appointment of an additional reviewer is therefore a mechanism for resolving insufficient evidentiary basis, not an automatic response to disagreement.

10. Editorial Decision Following Peer Review

After considering the manuscript, the required reviewer reports, any additional independent review obtained where applicable, author responses and revisions, and other relevant information, the Editor-in-Chief determines the appropriate editorial outcome.

The principal editorial decisions are:

• Accept;
• Revise;
• Reject.

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not constitute the decision itself.

A decision to Accept reflects the Journal’s scholarly editorial determination that the manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to completion of applicable production and publishing requirements.

A decision to Revise means that changes, clarification, author response, or reassessment are required before a final publication decision can be made.

A decision to Reject means that the manuscript is not accepted for publication.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, the decision is made by the qualified non-conflicted editorial authority to whom responsibility has been transferred.

Related: Editorial Policies

11. Revision and Author Response

Where revision is requested, authors are expected to consider reviewer and editorial comments in good faith.

Authors may be required to explain:

• how individual comments were addressed;
• where corresponding changes were made in the revised manuscript;
• why a particular recommendation was not followed;
• what supporting clarification or evidence has been provided.

To support author response and editorial monitoring, the Journal may use the approved Supplementary Author Response and Editorial Monitoring Table.

The table is a supplementary control instrument for documenting responses, manuscript changes, and editorial verification.

It does not replace the original reviewer reports or detailed editorial comments.

A request for revision does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript.

12. Substantial Revision and Reassessment

Where substantial revision is required, the revised manuscript is reassessed in relation to the substantive reviewer comments or recommendations that require verification.

The revised manuscript is returned to those original reviewers whose substantive comments require verification of implementation.

Where substantive comments requiring reassessment were provided by one of the two reviewers, reassessment may be sought from that reviewer.

Where substantive comments requiring reassessment were provided by both reviewers, the revised manuscript is returned to both reviewers unless the Editor-in-Chief determines another justified reassessment route.

The reassessment should consider both the revised manuscript and the author’s response to the relevant comments.

The reviewer’s reassessment remains advisory. The subsequent editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or, where applicable, another competent non-conflicted editorial authority.

13. Minor Revision and Editorial Reassessment

Where requested revisions are limited and do not require renewed external scholarly assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may determine that editorial reassessment is sufficient.

In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief may verify whether the requested changes have been adequately addressed without returning the revised manuscript to external reviewers.

Where further external scholarly assessment would assist reliable decision-making, the revised manuscript may nevertheless be returned to one or both reviewers.

Editorial reassessment following minor revision does not replace the original external peer-review process; it occurs after the manuscript has already been reviewed by two independent reviewers.

14. Reviewer Unavailability or Conflict After Revision

An original reviewer may be unable to participate in reassessment because the reviewer:

• is unavailable;
• declines further review;
• is unable to continue;
• develops a relevant conflict of interest;
• can no longer provide an independent assessment.

Where continued external reassessment is required, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint another qualified independent reviewer.

The replacement reviewer should receive sufficient information to conduct a reliable scholarly assessment while maintaining applicable confidentiality and double-blind requirements.

The unavailability of an original reviewer does not transfer final editorial authority to the reviewer appointed as replacement.

15. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Persons Associated with the Journal

Editorial Board membership or another formal relationship with the Journal does not provide preferential treatment in peer review.

Where the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, Publisher representative, or another person formally associated with the Journal is an author or co-author of a manuscript, that person must not participate in:

• reviewer selection;
• peer-review administration;
• assessment of reviewer reports;
• editorial correspondence concerning evaluation;
• reassessment of revisions;
• the final editorial decision.

Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or otherwise has a relevant conflict of interest, responsibility for the manuscript must be transferred to a qualified non-conflicted member of the Editorial Board or another appropriately designated independent editor.

The manuscript remains subject to the same requirement for external double-blind peer review by two independent reviewers.

Related: Editorial Policies  ·  Publication Ethics

16. Confidentiality and Generative AI

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and materials obtained through peer review are confidential.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished information for personal, academic, professional, financial, or other advantage.

Editors and reviewers must comply with the Journal’s Generative AI Policy and applicable confidentiality requirements when using generative AI or AI-assisted technologies.

Confidential unpublished manuscript material must not be processed through external AI services in a manner inconsistent with the Journal’s applicable rules or confidentiality obligations.

Generative AI systems do not replace accountable scholarly judgement.

The reviewer remains personally responsible for the assessment and recommendation submitted under their name.

Scientific evaluation and editorial decision-making remain human responsibilities.

Related: Review Ethics  ·  Generative AI Policy

17. Peer-Review Records and Documentation

The Journal maintains appropriate records concerning the peer-review process.

Depending on the manuscript, such records may include:

• reviewer invitations;
• reviewer acceptance or decline;
• reviewer identity and contact information retained for editorial administration;
• conflict-of-interest information;
• reviewer reports;
• Manuscript Review Forms;
• author responses;
• Supplementary Author Response and Editorial Monitoring Tables, where used;
• revision history;
• reassessment reports;
• significant editorial correspondence;
• editorial decisions.

Records are maintained with appropriate regard for confidentiality, data protection, editorial accountability, and the integrity of the scholarly publishing process.

Documentation should be sufficient to allow the Journal to establish how the peer-review process was conducted and how the resulting editorial decision was reached.

18. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This procedure operates within the Journal’s wider editorial and publication-governance framework.

Editorial authority, final decision-making, conflicts of interest, and transfer of authority are governed by the Journal’s Editorial Policies.

Research-integrity and publication-ethics concerns are governed by Publication Ethics.

Reviewer conduct, independence, confidentiality, conflicts, and reviewer responsibilities are further addressed in Review Ethics and the Guidelines for Reviewers.

Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies is governed by the Generative AI Policy.

Complaints and appeals concerning editorial handling or decisions are governed by the Journal’s Complaints and Appeals procedure.

These documents should be interpreted consistently and should not establish conflicting descriptions of the same peer-review process.

19. Procedure Governance and Review

This procedure is owned by the Editorial Board of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” and approved by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

It is reviewed periodically and may be updated in response to:

• changes in the Journal’s editorial procedures;
• experience gained through operation of the peer-review system;
• changes in related Journal policies;
• developments in scholarly publishing and research integrity;
• relevant international guidance;
• applicable legal or regulatory requirements.

Material revisions are identified through the version number and review date displayed at the beginning of the procedure.

Where revision of this procedure affects another Journal policy or procedure, the related documents must be reviewed for consistency.