Peer Review Policy

Integral Research is a scholarly journal facilitated by the Society for Academic Facilitation and Extension. Our publication adheres rigorously to a structured manuscript evaluation process prior to dissemination. Manuscripts proceed to review only following an initial assessment concerning their format and thematic alignment. Great emphasis is placed on expediting this initial evaluation process. Typically, the review process spans up to four weeks under ordinary circumstances, and exceptionally, it may extend to two months. On average, the duration from manuscript submission to publication spans approximately 20 days.

Peer Review Statement:

The submission and peer-review procedure within Integral Research adheres to a structured series of stages, as delineated below:

1. The Author composes a research manuscript and proceeds with its submission.

2. The Chief Editor conducts an initial assessment to ascertain suitability for review, subsequently directing the manuscript to appointed Reviewers.

3. Reviewers meticulously evaluate the manuscript in accordance with provided guidelines, assessing its research caliber and adherence to scholarly standards.

4. Upon completion of the review, the manuscript, accompanied by the Reviewers' recommendations - inclusive of suggestions for revision, acceptance, or rejection - is returned to the Chief Editor.

5. The Chief Editor formulates a decision regarding the manuscript, which is communicated to the Author.

6. Subsequently, the manuscript, along with the feedback from the Reviewers, is returned to the Author for consideration.

7. Following any revisions by the Author, the updated manuscript is relayed to the Publication Department by the Chief Editor.

It is noteworthy that the peer-review process adopted by Society for Academic Facilitation and Extension conforms to the principles of Double-Blind Peer Review, ensuring anonymity and impartiality throughout the evaluation process.

Review Procedure

The evaluation of each submitted manuscript is predicated on the following criteria:

1. The novelty of its scholarly contribution.
2. The robustness of its theoretical and methodological framework within the specified domain.
3. The coherence of its analytical approach.
4. Its efficacy in communicating ideas, encompassing aspects of grammar and style.

Consequently, the manuscript submission and peer review process entail the following stages:

1. Manuscript submission by the author.
2. Assignment of reviewers by the Chief Editor.
3. Review of the manuscript by appointed reviewers.
4. Compilation of a decision by the Chief Editor for communication to the author.

Note: The peer review process for submitted papers in this journal adheres to a double-blind protocol.

Peer Review

Submitted papers undergo a peer-review process, specifically double-blind peer review. This entails reviewers being unaware of the authors' identities, and vice versa. At least two reviewers are assigned to each manuscript. The typical review period is four weeks, although this timeframe may be adjusted during the editorial process.

Reviewer selection is at the discretion of the editors, with emphasis placed on reviewers' expertise within the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the authors' institution, nor should they have recent collaborative publications with any of the authors.

Conflicts of interest pertaining to the research, authors, or funding sources must be disclosed promptly by reviewers to the Chief Editor.

Any reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to assess a manuscript or unable to conduct a timely review must promptly notify the Chief Editor.

Reviews must be conducted objectively, avoiding personal criticism of the author and providing clear, evidence-based feedback.

All manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents.

Authors submit manuscripts via the online system, receiving an acknowledgment of receipt from the Editorial Office. The Chief Editor conducts the initial manuscript review, aided by Section Editors. Manuscripts meeting the journal's scope and formal requirements proceed to review. Those deemed unsuitable for publication are rejected, with authors notified accordingly. Manuscripts requiring revisions are returned to authors for resubmission.

Upon completion of the review process, manuscripts proceed to the Copy Editor for corrections adhering to the journal's referencing style. Following this, the Layout Editor structures the manuscript into the required format. The Proof Editor verifies the manuscript's readiness for publication.

Reviewers operate independently, with their identities undisclosed to one another. In cases where reviewer decisions diverge, additional reviewers may be enlisted by the Editor to facilitate consensus. The Editorial team ensures quality control of reviews, addressing concerns regarding objectivity or academic standards by appointing additional reviewers when necessary.

Principles for Reviewers:

In the pursuit of maintaining scholarly integrity, reviewers affiliated with Integral Research are expected to adhere to the following principles:

1. Competence: Reviewers should only accept assignments for manuscript evaluation within their field of expertise, ensuring the capability for thorough assessment and timely completion.

2. Confidentiality: Reviewers must uphold the confidentiality of the peer review process, refraining from disclosing any details pertaining to manuscripts or reviews, beyond those officially released by Integral Research.

3. Integrity: Reviewers shall refrain from exploiting information obtained during the review process for personal or organizational gain, or to the detriment of others. Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed promptly to the journal's Chief Editor.

4. Impartiality: Reviews must be conducted objectively, devoid of biases related to the origins, characteristics, or affiliations of the authors, as well as any commercial considerations.

5. Constructiveness: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback, maintaining a tone of objectivity and professionalism, and refraining from hostile or inflammatory remarks.

6. Reciprocity: Acknowledging the reciprocal nature of peer review, reviewers commit to fulfilling their fair share of reviewing duties promptly and effectively.

7. Accuracy: Reviewers shall provide accurate personal and professional information, reflecting their expertise and commitment to the peer review process.

8. Ethical Considerations: Reviewers are obliged to address ethical concerns, including plagiarism or duplicate publication, by promptly notifying the Chief Editor of any such issues encountered during the review process.

Reviewer Guidelines

In alignment with the principles outlined above, reviewers are guided by the following protocols:

1. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are advised to promptly disclose any conflicts of interest to the Chief Editor upon assignment of a manuscript.

2. Double-Blind Review: Each manuscript undergoes evaluation by two independent reviewers in a double-blind fashion, ensuring anonymity to both authors and reviewers to facilitate impartial assessment.

3. Timely Review: Reviewers are allotted a period of 2-6 weeks for manuscript evaluation. In the event of inability to meet deadlines, prompt communication with the Chief Editor is encouraged.

4. Confidentiality: Reviewers are reminded to maintain the confidentiality of their identities and review processes. Personal information remains confidential and is not disclosed to authors, aside from necessary corrections, suggestions, or complaints.

5. Assessment Criteria: Reviewers are advised to evaluate the manuscript's originality, relevance, presentation, and significance within the scope of the journal. Attention to adherence to submission criteria and language standards is also emphasized.

6. Review Report: Reviewers are expected to complete all sections of the review form, offering constructive feedback on the quality of the work and suggesting improvements where necessary.

7. Recommendation: Following assessment, reviewers are tasked with making recommendations to the Chief Editor regarding publication, including options for acceptance, revision, resubmission, or rejection, based on the manuscript's readiness for publication.

Revised Manuscripts

Upon receipt of revised manuscripts, authors are required to provide a list of changes and responses to reviewer comments. Whenever feasible, revised manuscripts are reassigned to the original reviewers for assessment of satisfactory revisions.

Non-availability for Review

Should a reviewer be unable to fulfill their assigned duties, prompt communication with the editorial office is imperative to prevent delays in the refereeing process.

Important Considerations

- Blind Peer Review: All journal content undergoes blind peer review to ensure impartial evaluation.
- Review Type: The review process encompasses abstracted and indexed, refereed, and peer-reviewed assessments.
- Objective Judgment: Reviewers are expected to maintain objectivity in their assessments.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest.
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are treated with utmost confidentiality until publication.