Editorial Process
Upon submission to the Journal of International Prospective Studies, your manuscript embarks on a peer review process, where fellow experts rigorously assess the quality of your research. Accepted manuscripts must adhere to the journal’s manuscript preparation protocol. Refer to Author Guidelines. Additionally, the journal has implemented a plagiarism screening policy to protect authors’ rights and ensure the originality of published texts.
For a visual representation of this process, you can explore the Infographic that outlines the stages your manuscript undergoes, from initial submission to the production stage.
- Author Submission
Manuscripts are submitted to the journal by the corresponding or submitting author. This pivotal step marks the beginning of the evaluation process. Review the Submission Guidelines.
- Initial Review
Our journal’s editor initiates the evaluation process by conducting an initial review of your submission. This review involves several key aspects:
- Alignment with Journal Scope: We ensure that your manuscript aligns with the specific aims and scope of the journal.
- Adherence to Submission Guidelines: We verify that your submission follows the author guidelines, including formatting, structure, and other essential requirements.
- Similarity Check: We perform a similarity check to ensure originality and prevent plagiarism.
Note: To ensure the authenticity of the research published in our journal, we utilise iThenticate, a leading plagiarism detection software. This tool helps us to identify and address any potential instances of plagiarism, ensuring that all submissions are original and appropriately cited.
Following this initial review, one of the following outcomes may arise:
- Initial Review Pass: If your manuscript successfully passes the editorial check, the next step involves inviting peer reviewers for further assessment.
- Revisions Requested: If there are any minor errors in your submission that can be easily corrected, the editorial team may request you to address formatting or missing information before entering the peer review process.
- Desk Rejection: In some cases, a submission might be rejected at this stage, before entering the peer review process. This indicates that the editorial team considers the manuscript unsuitable for publication in our journal.
- Invitation to Reviewers
Once a submission passes the initial review, the editorial team identifies and reaches out to esteemed researchers and scholars within your specific domain. Typically, each research article is subjected to assessment by a minimum of two independent reviewers. If needed, additional invitations will be sent out to ensure the acquisition of the required number of reviewers.
Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their area of expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. They then make an informed decision to accept or decline the review request. In cases of refusal, these potential reviewers might also propose alternative experts who could provide an unbiased evaluation of the manuscript.
- Review is Conducted
Upon receiving the manuscript, reviewers initiate a comprehensive evaluation, carefully analysing its methodology, originality, clarity, and adherence to ethical guidelines.
The duration of the review process varies for each manuscript, typically ranging from 2 to 3 months. This timeline depends on the quality of the submission and the availability of reviewers. Authors can conveniently track the status of their manuscript by logging into the submission system.
Upon completion of the review process, reviewers typically provide the editor with one of the following five recommendations.
- Accept without any changes
- Accept with minor revisions
- Consider after major revisions
- Revise and resubmit
- Reject
- Editor Assesses Review Reports
The editor considers the reviewers’ comments and conducts an overall assessment of the manuscript. If the reviews differ significantly, additional reviewers may be engaged to ensure a comprehensive evaluation.
- Author Revisions
Once the editor has received and thoroughly considered the reviewer reports, alongside their own assessment of your work, you will be promptly notified of the editorial decision. This decision is communicated to you via email, which serves to provide transparency and clarity in the process.
The email will also include the comprehensive feedback and comments provided by the reviewers. Depending on the specific peer review model employed by the journal, the identities of the reviewers may or may not be disclosed. This approach is designed to ensure a transparent and constructive exchange of insights, enabling you to gain valuable perspectives on your work.
For manuscripts that receive an outcome of “Accept with minor revisions” or “Consider after major revisions”, authors embark on a process of revising and responding to all comments from both the editor and reviewers. This revision cycle may repeat until the editor can make an informed decision on the acceptance of the manuscript. If concerns remain unresolved, even after several rounds of revision, the possibility of rejection still exists.
In cases where the final outcome is “Revise and resubmit”, the editor may call upon peer reviewers to evaluate the revised content to ensure all concerns are adequately addressed. Occasionally, new expert reviewers may be invited to assess subsequent drafts, resulting in another round of peer review.
- Editorial Final Decision
After receiving the revised manuscript, the editor evaluates the authors’ responses and the revised version. Based on the reviewers’ recommendations and their own assessment, the editor makes a final decision on acceptance.
- Production
Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the production phase, where it undergoes formatting, proofreading, and final preparations before publication.
