International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research (IJMCR)

1. The Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process is the critical foundation of scholarly publishing at IJMCR. Its primary purpose is to maintain the quality, integrity, and validity of the research published by ensuring that manuscripts meet the journal’s standards for scientific rigor, originality, and ethical conduct.

2. Peer Review Model

IJMCR employs a Double-Blind Peer Review model.

• Reviewer Anonymity: The identity of the reviewers is kept confidential from the authors.
• Author Anonymity: The names and affiliations of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.

This model is adopted to minimize bias and to ensure that manuscripts are judged solely on the merits of their scientific content.

3. The Peer Review Process Workflow

The following steps outline the journey of a manuscript from submission to final decision:

A. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

• Submission: The author submits the manuscript through the Online Journal System (OJS).
• Formatting and Scope Check: The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) or Section Editor verifies formatting compliance, journal scope alignment, and the presence of required ethical statements (e.g., plagiarism declaration, human/animal ethics).
• Plagiarism Check: Manuscripts are screened for plagiarism. Submissions that fail this check or fall outside the journal scope are desk-rejected.

B. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

• Selection: The Section Editor selects at least two independent experts in the relevant field with no conflicts of interest.
• Invitation: Reviewers are invited via OJS and are typically given 2–4 weeks to complete the review.

C. Review and Assessment

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Originality and Significance: Novelty and contribution to knowledge
• Scientific Soundness: Appropriateness of methodology and data analysis
• Clarity and Organization: Logical structure and clarity of presentation
• Ethical Compliance: Adherence to ethical research standards
• Contribution to the Field: Overall academic and practical impact

Recommendation: Reviewers submit a confidential report and recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept: Publish as submitted (rare)
• Minor Revisions: Publishable after minor corrections
• Major Revisions: Substantial revision required with possible re-review
• Reject: Not suitable for publication in the journal

D. Editorial Decision

• Decision Making: The Editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes the final decision.
• Communication: The corresponding author is informed of the decision and receives anonymized reviewer comments.

4. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents.
• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline review if conflicts exist.
• Objectivity: Reviews must be fair, evidence-based, and free of personal criticism.
• Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the agreed deadline.
• Detection of Misconduct: Suspected ethical issues must be reported confidentially to the Editor.

5. Ethical Guidelines for Authors

• Responding to Reviews: Authors must respond to reviewer comments point-by-point with a detailed response letter.
• Originality: Authors must ensure originality and proper citation of all sources in accordance with the IJMCR Plagiarism Policy.