Peer Review Process

IJERD employs a double-anonymized peer review process for all submitted and published content to ensure impartiality and scholarly rigor. Peer reviewers are selected based on clearly defined criteria reflecting subject matter expertise, academic integrity, and professional standing. IJERD conducts periodic evaluations to confirm that reviewers continue to meet its standards and that their ongoing participation remains appropriate. Reviewers may be replaced at the discretion of IJERD and the Editorial Board to maintain quality, relevance, equity and fairness of the review process.

Manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers with a focus on scientific integrity, validity, and methodologic rigor. Feeback and recommendations are provided to authors with a goal to resolve concerns or questions and to progress to publication for all worthy content. Content judged to not meet the IJERD peer review process will not be published in the IJERD journal or in other IJERD publications.

Review criteria, timelines, and reviewer responsibilities are published on the IJERD website to ensure transparency and equity.

Peer Review Policy for IJERD

A robust peer review process is essential to maintaining academic integrity and quality in scholarly journals, ensuring submitted work is evaluated fairly, confidentially, and consistently.​

Authors

  • All submissions are acknowledged by the editorial office within one week of receipt.
  • Manuscripts undergo an initial screening for compliance with submission guidelines and topical relevance, typically completed within two weeks.
  • Authors are informed about the progress of their submission at every major stage by email or through an online manuscript management system.

Reviewers

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Upon invitation, reviewers receive the manuscript and a review form outlining required evaluation criteria; they are asked to accept or decline the request within one week.
  • Reviews are generally requested within three weeks, and reviewers are reminded of deadlines one week in advance.
  • Reviewers’ identities remain confidential (single- or double-blind model) unless otherwise specified.

Actionable Steps and Timelines

  1. Manuscript received and initial compliance check (1 week)
  2. Assignment to editor and reviewer selection (1 week)
  3. Reviewer agreement and review (3 weeks)
  4. Editorial decision and author notification (1 week after reviews received)
  5. Revision by author, if needed (timeline: 2 weeks)
  6. Final decision and publication queue notification (1 week after revised manuscript received)

Communication Channels

  • All formal communication with authors and reviewers occurs via the journal’s designated email.
  • Major decisions and revision requests are accompanied by reviewer comments and editorial explanations.
  • If direct queries are needed, telephone or video conference (with prior consent) may be utilized for clarification.

Policy Details

  • All correspondence is archived for transparency.
  • Appeals about editorial decisions are reviewed by a separate board subcommittee to ensure fairness.                                                                                                                                   <=BACK