Peer Reviewer Policy & Code of Conduct

Peer reviewers for International Journal of Research, Exploration & Knowledge (IJREK) are selected on the basis of verified academic expertise in the specific subject discipline of the manuscript.

• Academic Credentials: Reviewers must hold a Ph.D. or terminal doctoral degree in a relevant field and maintain an active record of peer-reviewed scholarly publications.
• Institutional Affiliation: Reviewers must possess a verifiable academic or corporate research affiliation with an active institutional email and ORCID profile.
• Impartiality: Reviewers must have no recent research collaborations or institutional ties with the submitting authors within the preceding 3 years.

Unpublished manuscripts sent for peer review are privileged, proprietary, and strictly confidential documents:

• Reviewers must not share, discuss, or circulate the manuscript or any part of its data with colleagues, students, or third parties without explicit prior written authorization from the handling Editor.
• Reviewers are strictly forbidden from utilizing unpublished ideas, concepts, software algorithms, or empirical data from reviewed manuscripts in their own research prior to formal public release.
• Reviewers must delete all downloaded manuscript files upon completion of their evaluation.

In alignment with COPE guidelines on generative AI in peer review, reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts or review prompts into external generative AI platforms (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or automated summarizers).

Inputting confidential manuscripts into third-party AI platforms breaches author confidentiality, compromises intellectual property rights, and risks unauthorized data ingestion into public model datasets. Review reports must be composed entirely through the reviewer's own critical scientific analysis.

Reviews should be conducted objectively and constructively. Referees are expected to:

• Provide clear, detailed, and reasoned scientific feedback supporting their recommendation.
• Evaluate the rigor of mathematical formulations, experimental validity, baseline comparisons, and statistical significance.
• Refrain from hostile, derogatory, or personal criticisms directed at the authors.
• Avoid requiring authors to cite the reviewer's own publications unless fundamentally essential for the scientific integrity of the study.

Reviewers must immediately notify the handling Editor and decline the review assignment if they perceive any potential conflict of interest, including:

• Recognizing the work as coming from a current close collaborator, former Ph.D. advisor, or advisee.
• Direct scientific competition or commercial rivalry regarding the specific technology under review.
• Prior involvement in drafting, advising, or funding the research project.

Timely peer review is critical to avoid unnecessary delay for authors. Reviewers are asked to:

• Respond to the initial review invitation within 3 to 5 business days.
• Submit the completed evaluation report within the standard agreed period (typically 2 to 3 weeks).
• Notify the editorial office immediately if unforeseen circumstances necessitate an extension.

Reviewers who identify potential ethical violations during their evaluation—such as substantial text overlap with published literature, suspected data fabrication, image manipulation, or duplicate concurrent publication—should immediately alert the handling Editor confidentially within their report.