Statement of Practice
Integral Research upholds a rigorous, transparent, and impartial evaluation process for all submitted manuscripts, governed by the principles of Double-Blind Peer Review and aligned with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
4 wks
Typical Review Period
2–6 wks
Reviewer Timeframe
1
Editorial Process
Submission & Review Workflow
All manuscripts proceed to peer review only following a preliminary editorial assessment of format and thematic alignment. The complete evaluation process follows the structured sequence below.
1
Author
Composes and submits the manuscript via the online system. An acknowledgement of receipt is issued by the Editorial Office upon submission.
2
Chief Editor — Initial Screening
Assesses the submission for scope alignment, format compliance, and ethical integrity. Manuscripts falling outside the journal's remit are declined at this stage with prompt author notification.
3
Independent Reviewers
At least two independent experts evaluate the manuscript under a Double-Blind protocol, assessing research calibre, originality, methodology, and scholarly standards in accordance with the review guidelines.
4
Chief Editor — Decision
Collates reviewers' recommendations — acceptance, revision, or rejection — and formulates an editorial decision, which is communicated to the author along with the full reviewer feedback.
5
Author — Revision (if required)
If revisions are requested, the author submits a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Wherever feasible, revised manuscripts are returned to the original reviewers for reassessment.
6
Copy & Layout Editors
The accepted manuscript proceeds to the Copy Editor for referencing corrections, then to the Layout Editor for formatting, and finally to the Proof Editor, who verifies readiness for publication.
7
Publication
The typeset, proofed manuscript is published in the next available issue and assigned a permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) via Crossref.
⚙
Divergent Reviewer Opinions: Where reviewer recommendations diverge, the Chief Editor may appoint an additional reviewer to facilitate consensus. The Editorial team ensures quality control of all reviews and may commission supplementary assessment where concerns over objectivity or scholarly rigour are identified.
2
Assessment Framework
Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Every submitted manuscript is assessed against four cardinal scholarly criteria. Reviewers are asked to comment on each dimension explicitly in their reports.
✦
Novelty
The originality and significance of the scholarly contribution to its field of knowledge.
◈
Framework
The robustness of the theoretical and methodological foundations within the specified domain.
⊙
Analytical Rigour
The logic, coherence, and internal consistency of the analytical approach employed.
◇
Communication
The clarity, precision, and quality of presentation — encompassing grammar, style, and argument structure.
3
Reviewer Standards
Reviewer Selection & Conduct
Reviewer selection is at the discretion of the editors, with primary weight given to subject-area expertise. The following conditions apply to all appointed reviewers without exception:
- Reviewers must not be affiliated with the authors' institution.
- Reviewers must not have recent collaborative publications with any of the authors.
- Reviewers operate independently; their identities are not disclosed to one another.
- Conflicts of interest relating to the research, authors, or funding sources must be disclosed immediately to the Chief Editor.
- Any reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or unable to conduct a timely review must notify the Chief Editor without delay.
- Reviews must be conducted objectively — avoiding personal criticism and providing clear, evidence-based evaluation.
- All manuscripts received for review are treated as strictly confidential documents and must not be cited, referenced, or disseminated.
4
Ethical Framework
Principles for Reviewers
Reviewers affiliated with Integral Research are expected to uphold the following eight principles of scholarly integrity in all review activities:
| Principle |
Expectation |
| Competence |
Accept assignments only within your field of expertise, ensuring capacity for thorough assessment and timely delivery. |
| Confidentiality |
Uphold the confidentiality of manuscripts and review communications; disclose nothing beyond what is officially released by the journal. |
| Integrity |
Do not exploit information acquired during review for personal or organisational gain; disclose all potential conflicts of interest to the Chief Editor promptly. |
| Impartiality |
Conduct reviews objectively, free from bias relating to authors' origins, affiliations, characteristics, or any commercial interests. |
| Constructiveness |
Provide professional, constructive feedback; maintain objectivity and refrain from hostile, dismissive, or inflammatory commentary. |
| Reciprocity |
Recognise the reciprocal nature of peer review and fulfil assigned duties promptly and to a high standard. |
| Accuracy |
Provide truthful information about your expertise, availability, and any affiliations relevant to the manuscript under review. |
| Ethics |
Report concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other ethical violations to the Chief Editor immediately upon discovery. |
5
Operational Protocols
Reviewer Guidelines
In alignment with the principles above, reviewers are guided by the following seven operational protocols:
I
Conflict of Interest
Disclose any conflicts of interest to the Chief Editor immediately upon assignment, before commencing the review.
II
Double-Blind Process
Each manuscript is evaluated by two independent reviewers in a double-blind fashion. Neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other's identities at any stage of the process.
III
Timely Review
Reviewers are allotted 2–6 weeks for manuscript evaluation. Inability to meet agreed deadlines must be communicated to the Chief Editor as early as possible.
IV
Confidentiality
Reviewer identities and review content are strictly confidential. Information is not disclosed to authors except through the formal editorial communication channel.
V
Assessment Criteria
Evaluate originality, relevance, analytical rigour, presentation quality, and significance within the journal's scope. Attention to language standards and submission-guideline compliance is also required.
VI
Review Report
Complete all sections of the review form, providing specific, actionable, and constructive feedback on the quality of the work and recommending targeted improvements where necessary.
VII
Recommendation
Conclude with a formal recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Resubmit, or Reject, based on an objective assessment of the manuscript's readiness for publication.
6
Post-Review Procedures
Revised Manuscripts & Reviewer Availability
Revised Manuscripts
Upon submission of a revised manuscript, authors must furnish a complete list of all changes made and a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment. Wherever feasible, revised manuscripts are reassigned to the original reviewers to confirm the adequacy of revisions.
Non-Availability
Should a reviewer be unable to fulfil assigned duties at any stage, the editorial office must be notified promptly to prevent delays in the review process. An alternative reviewer will be appointed without undue delay.
7
At a Glance
Key Features of This Policy
Double-Blind ReviewCOPE-AlignedAbstracted & IndexedRefereed JournalObjective AssessmentConflict of Interest DisclosureFull Confidentiality2+ Independent ReviewersDOI via Crossref
A Commitment to Scholarly Integrity
Integral Research is committed to a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process that upholds the highest standards of academic excellence. All reviewers, authors, and editors are expected to adhere to these guidelines at every stage. Questions regarding this policy may be directed to the editorial office via the journal's formal contact page.
