Double Blind Peer-Review Process

Double-blind peer review is a process in which both the reviewer and the author's identities are kept confidential during the review process. This type of review is commonly used in academic publishing to ensure impartial and unbiased evaluation of research papers.

In a double-blind peer review process, the author submits their paper to a journal or conference for consideration. The editor then sends the paper to two or more independent reviewers, who are experts in the field of study. The reviewers are not told the identity of the authors, and the authors are not told the identities of the reviewers.

The reviewers carefully read the paper and provide feedback on its quality, significance, methodology, and findings. They then make a recommendation to the editor on whether the paper should be accepted, revised, or rejected. The editor ultimately makes the decision on whether to accept the paper for publication based on the reviewers' recommendations.

Double-blind peer review helps to reduce bias and ensure that papers are evaluated based on their scientific merit rather than the reputation or affiliations of the author. It also helps to prevent conflicts of interest and promotes a fair and rigorous review process.

• The Double-Blind Peer review is followed by the “IJEP“ Journal wherein the reviewers are not aware of the identities of the authors of the papers which are being reviewed by them.
• The final decision on whether to accept a manuscript for publication is made by the Editor, based on the peer-review process and the reviewers’ recommendations.
• First of all, the researcher has to complete his/her research work and draft the documents.
• The researcher may draft a manuscript (drafted documents or articles) which may come under the classification of the research article, review article, short communication or case studies.
• The manuscript must be drafted as per the "Author Guidelines".
• The manuscript must be read 3 to 4 times by researcher to check and pick mistake done by him/her.
• Finally, the article must be submitted to the “IJEP“ for further processing.
• When an article is submitted to the journal, a general check of the paper’s suitability, such as the manuscript format and length, and the matching of research scope is conducted at the journal office. If it is judged to be suitable, the editor will ask a reviewer to evaluate the paper.
• The reviewer is asked to evaluate the article from a variety of aspects such as the novelty and originality of research, the importance and impact of results, the logic, style, length and clarity of presentation, and the completeness of references.
• Each research article submitted to "IJEP" is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers through a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and are required to declare any potential conflict of interest.
• The reviewer then completes the review process and provides a report in the prescribed format including various comments and recommendations to the “IJEP" journal.

Rules for Paper Screening

• Does the paper fit within the stated scope of the journal?
• Does the paper add new knowledge to the overall body of scientific understanding?
• Is the paper free of errors in logic?
• Do the conclusions follow from the evidence?
• Is methodology explained in sufficient detail?
• Is previous work cited and represented correctly?
• Is information conveyed clearly enough to be understood by the readers?
• Are all figures and tables complete, necessary and appropriate?

After reviewing an article, the reviewer sends an evaluation report to the Editor of the journal.

Editorial Decision 

Based on the evaluation reports received from the reviewers, the Editor will make one of the following decisions regarding the submitted manuscript and notify the corresponding author accordingly:

• Evaluation A – Accept: Accept for publication without revision.
• Evaluation B – Minor Revision: Minor revisions are required before acceptance.
• Evaluation C – Major Revision: Major revisions are required, and the manuscript may be subject to another round of review.
• Evaluation D – Reject: The manuscript is rejected for publication.

The reviewers' comments and recommendations will be communicated to the corresponding author for necessary revisions. Authors are expected to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments and the journal's guidelines.

After the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor will evaluate the revisions and may make a final decision to accept the manuscript, request further revisions, send it for another round of review, or reject it, depending on the extent to which the reviewers' comments have been addressed.

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection will be communicated to the corresponding author by email.