Double-Anonymized Peer Review Process
Systematic, objective, and ethical evaluation workflow ensuring rigorous scholarly quality for IJREK
Double-Anonymized Peer Review Framework
The International Journal of Research, Exploration & Knowledge (IJREK) enforces a rigorous Double-Anonymized (Double-Blind) peer review standard. Under this framework, the identities of the authors are concealed from the referees, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the entire evaluation cycle.
This mutual anonymity eliminates conscious or unconscious bias related to nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or seniority, guaranteeing that every manuscript is appraised strictly on the basis of its scientific novelty, methodological rigor, and empirical validity.
Technical Validation & Editorial Screening
Technical Compliance Check (Section C)
The Editorial Secretariat verifies formatting compliance, file completeness, blinded manuscript anonymity, ethics declarations, and runs automated similarity/plagiarism screening.
Section Editor Scope Check (Section D)
The handling Section Editor evaluates whether the research falls within the journal's approved tracks, addresses a meaningful research problem, and exhibits sufficient scientific potential for external referee review.
Reviewer Selection & Two Independent Evaluations
Every manuscript that passes editorial pre-screening is assigned to a minimum of two independent academic referees with specialized domain expertise.
Must hold a Ph.D. or equivalent in the field, with an established publication record in indexed literature.
Strict exclusion of referees from the same institution or recent collaborators to avoid conflicts of interest.
An editorial decision is never rendered based on a single review; a third referee is engaged in cases of split evaluations.
Peer Review Evaluation Criteria
Referees evaluate manuscripts across five core scientific dimensions:
1. Scientific Novelty
Originality of the conceptual framework, algorithm, or experimental approach.
2. Methodological Rigor
Soundness of mathematical formulations, experimental setup, and dataset validity.
3. Empirical Validation
Adequacy of comparative baselines, statistical significance, and error analyses.
4. Literature Depth
Comprehensiveness and accuracy of citations, including contemporary foundational works.
5. Clarity & Reproducibility
Clarity of exposition, precision of diagrams/tables, and availability of sufficient details for reproducible research.
Reviewer Responsibilities & Confidentiality
In full alignment with COPE guidelines, referees agree to treat unpublished manuscripts as strictly confidential documents. Referees may not share, utilize, or discuss manuscript data with third parties.
Reviewers are prohibited from inputting unpublished manuscripts into external generative AI platforms to preserve author intellectual property and confidentiality.
Editorial Decision Taxonomy
Following synthesis of reviewer reports, the handling Editor renders one of four official decisions:
Manuscript meets all scientific and formatting benchmarks and moves directly to production proofing.
Manuscript requires minor clarifications, textual edits, or reference additions; checked by the handling Editor.
Requires additional experiments, methodological updates, or extensive restructuring; subject to re-review.
Manuscript possesses critical methodological flaws, lack of novelty, or severe ethical shortcomings.
Formal Editorial Appeals
Authors who believe a rejection decision was based on factual inaccuracies or reviewer misunderstanding of experimental data may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must be grounded in documented scientific evidence rather than disagreement with subjective editorial judgment.
Sequential Review Lifecycle
Technical Validation
Formatting compliance, blinded check & similarity screening.
Editorial Screening
Scope fit, contribution value & track assignment.
Referee Selection
Invitation of 2+ independent subject specialists.
Double-Blind Review
Anonymous evaluation based on 5-point rubric.
Editorial Decision
Editor renders Accept / Minor / Major / Reject.
Author Revision
Response letter + tracked changes manuscript.
Galley Proofing
Typesetting & final author proof approval.
Open Access Release
Published with DOI & permanent digital archiving.