IJERD upholds a rigorous\u00a0double-anonymized peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published articles. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process in order to maintain impartiality and fairness in editorial decisions.<\/p>\n
Upon submission, each manuscript is reviewed by the Editorial Office to confirm its relevance to the journal\u2019s scope, adherence to submission guidelines, and compliance with ethical and formatting standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are rejected without review. The remaining manuscripts are assigned to a handling Editor who assigns two reviewers to assess each manuscript.<\/p>\n
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:<\/p>\n
The requested deadline for submission of the reviewers\u2019 reports is 20 days for all article types.<\/p>\n
Upon receipt of the two reviewers\u2019 reports, the Editor makes the first decision on the manuscript. If the decision is to request revision of the manuscript, authors have ten weeks to resubmit their revised manuscript. Authors receiving revision requests are expected to carefully address all reviewer and editorial comments and resubmit the revised manuscript via email to iserd.secretariat@gmail.com<\/a> within the timeframe specified.<\/p>\n The Editor may send revised manuscripts to peer reviewers for their feedback or may use his or her own judgment to assess how closely the authors have followed the Editor\u2019s and the reviewers\u2019 comments on the original manuscript.<\/p>\n The Editor then makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on the manuscript\u2019s suitability for publication. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making the final decision on each manuscript.<\/p>\n IJERD publishing decisions are based on scholarly importance and merit with no consideration of the author\u2019s personal demographics and values, including ethnicity, nationality, race, religion or political beliefs.<\/p>\n The members of the Editorial Board act in advisory roles, providing feedback as reviewers and making suggestions to improve the journal.<\/em> In cases where the Editor-in-Chief is an author on a manuscript submitted to the journal, a member of the Editorial Board is responsible for making the final decision on the manuscript\u2019s suitability for publication in the journal.<\/p>\n Reviewers are selected based on clearly defined criteria reflecting subject matter expertise, academic integrity, and professional standing.<\/p>\n Reviewers are asked to submit their first review within 20 days of accepting the invitation to review. Reviewers who anticipate any delays should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.<\/p>\n When submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors may suggest reviewers that they would like included in or excluded from the peer review process. The Editor may consider these suggestions but is under no obligation to follow them. The selection, invitation, and assignment of peer reviewers is at the Editor\u2019s sole discretion.<\/p>\n Review criteria, timelines, and reviewer responsibilities are published on the IJERD website to ensure transparency and equity.<\/p>\n It is the journal\u2019s policy to transmit reviewers\u2019 comments to the authors in their original form. However, the journal reserves the right to edit reviewers\u2019 comments, without consulting the reviewers, if they contain offensive language, confidential information or recommendations for publication.<\/p>\n The International Society of Environmental and Rural Development (ISERD) has granted the journal\u2019s Editorial Board complete and sole responsibility for all editorial decisions. ISERD will not become involved in editorial decisions, except in cases of a fundamental breakdown of process.<\/p>\n Editorial decisions are based only on a manuscript\u2019s scientific merit and are kept completely separate from the journal\u2019s other interests. The authors\u2019 ability to pay any publication charges has no bearing on whether a manuscript is accepted for publication in the journal.<\/p>\n IJERD has strong policies and systems in place that work to ensure that editorial decisions are free from commercial, political, or institutional influence. Further, IJERD\u2019s Editorial Board decisions are free from any influence from authors or other stakeholders.<\/p>\n The composition of the Editorial Board is routinely reviewed. Board members voluntarily serve for a fixed term and by agreement of the entire Board. Board members can be replaced for cause and by a simple majority vote of the Board.<\/p>\n The Board meets in private and maintains appropriate confidentiality of all matters before it. The Board adjudicates all matters and decisions, and its actions are transparently communicated to the relevant authors and stakeholders.<\/p>\n Authors who believe that an editorial decision has been made in error may lodge an appeal with the Editorial Office. Appeals are only considered if the authors provide detailed evidence of a misunderstanding or mistake by a reviewer or editor. Appeals are considered carefully by the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. The COPE guidelines are followed where relevant.<\/p>\n The journal maintains the confidentiality of all unpublished manuscripts. Editors and reviewers will not:<\/p>\n In addition, reviewers will not reveal their identity to any of the authors of the manuscript or involve anyone else in the review (for example, a post-doc or PhD student) without first receiving permission from the Editor.<\/p>\n A conflict of interest exists when there are actual, perceived or potential circumstances that could influence an editor or reviewer\u2019s ability to act impartially when assessing a manuscript. Such circumstances include (but are not limited to) having a personal or professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author, having a financial stake in the work or its publication, or having seen previous versions of the manuscript.<\/p>\n Reviewers and members of the journal\u2019s Editorial Board undertake to declare any conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts. An editor or reviewer who declares a conflict of interest is unassigned from the manuscript in question and is replaced by a new editor or reviewer.<\/p>\n Editors try to avoid conflicts of interest when inviting reviewers, but it is not always possible to identify potential bias.<\/p>\n IJERD recognizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of published literature by issuing timely corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern related to its published content. The journal follows COPE guidelines when handling publication errors or misconduct.<\/p>\n A published article that contains an error may be corrected through the publication of a Correction. Corrections describe errors that significantly affect the scientific integrity of a publication, the reputation of the authors, or the journal itself. Authors who wish to correct a published article should contact the editor who handled their manuscript or the Editorial Office with full details of the error(s) and their requested changes. In cases where co-authors disagree over a correction, the Editor-in-Chief may consult the Editorial Board or external peer reviewers for advice. If a Correction is published, any dissenting authors will be noted in the text.<\/p>\n A published article that contains invalid or unreliable results or conclusions, has been published elsewhere, or has infringed codes of conduct (covering research or publication ethics) may be retracted. Individuals who believe that a published article should be retracted are encouraged to contact the journal\u2019s Editorial Office with full details of their concerns. The Editor-in-Chief will investigate further and contact the authors of the published article for their response. In cases where co-authors disagree over a retraction, the Editor-in-Chief may consult the Editorial Board or external peer reviewers for advice. If a Retraction is published, any dissenting authors will be noted in the text.<\/p>\n Expressions of concern are issued by the Editor-in-Chief when there are well-founded concerns regarding the integrity of an article or in cases of suspected misconduct. They remain in place while any official institutional or journal investigation remains ongoing.<\/p>\n The decision to publish Corrections, Retractions or Expressions of Concern is at the sole discretion of the Editorial Board.<\/p>\n Any member of the journal\u2019s Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief, who is an author on a submitted manuscript is excluded from the peer review process and from viewing details about their manuscript.<\/p>\n A manuscript authored by an editor of the journal is subject to the same high standards of peer review and editorial decision-making as any manuscript considered by the journal.<\/p>\n IJERD is committed to partnering with authors on the transparent, effective, and timely resolution of alleged violations of research and publishing ethics.<\/p>\n The Editorial Board shall thoroughly investigate and respond to allegations of ethical breaches by following its own policies and, where possible, the guidelines of COPE<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Editorial Board\u2019s decisions and subsequent actions shall be final and without the possibility of appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00a0 \u00a0 Editorial and peer review process IJERD upholds a rigorous\u00a0double-anonymized peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published articles. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process in order to maintain impartiality and fairness in editorial decisions. Upon submission, each manuscript is reviewed by the Editorial Office to confirm its relevance to the journal\u2019s scope, adherence to submission guidelines, and compliance with ethical and formatting standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are rejected without review. The remaining manuscripts are assigned to a handling Editor who assigns two reviewers to assess each manuscript. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following … Continue reading \u00a0 \u00a0 Reviewer selection, timing and suggestions<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 Reviewer reports<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 Editorial independence<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 Appeals<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 Confidentiality in peer review<\/h3>\n
\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 Editor and reviewer conflicts of interest in peer review<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern<\/h3>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0Editors as authors in the journal<\/h3>\n
Responding to complaints and potential ethical breaches<\/h3>\n