Peer Review Process
IEJMS operates double-blind peer review: reviewers are not told who the authors are, and authors are not told who the reviewers are. Every research article is assessed by at least two independent subject experts.
The stages
| # | Stage | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Editorial screening | The Editor-in-Chief or a handling Associate Editor checks scope, format, declarations and similarity screening. Out-of-scope or incomplete manuscripts are returned or rejected at this point, usually within 1–2 weeks. |
| 2 | Reviewer assignment | At least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise, from institutions other than the authors', are invited. |
| 3 | Review | Reviewers assess the manuscript against the published criteria and submit a written report with a recommendation. We ask for reports within 3 weeks. |
| 4 | Editorial decision | The handling editor weighs the reports and issues a decision: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not bind the decision. |
| 5 | Revision | Authors return a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response. Major revisions normally go back to the original reviewers. |
| 6 | Final decision | Taken by the Editor-in-Chief or handling Associate Editor. |
| 7 | Production | Copyediting, typesetting, author proof, DOI assignment and publication in the next monthly issue. |
Timelines
The journal targets a first decision within 6–8 weeks of submission. Where a manuscript needs a third reviewer or specialist statistical review this may take longer; authors are informed if the timeline slips.
Anonymity
Because review is double-blind, authors should supply a title page with identifying details as a separate file, and keep the main manuscript free of author names, affiliations, acknowledgements and self-identifying references ("as we showed in [12]" should read "as shown in [12]").
Appeals
Authors who believe a decision rests on a factual error or a misunderstanding may appeal once, in writing to editor@iejms.scienceroot.in, explaining the specific grounds. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult a new reviewer. Disagreement with the editorial judgement is not in itself grounds for appeal, and the Editor-in-Chief's decision on an appeal is final.
Editorial submissions
Manuscripts authored by an editor or board member are handled entirely by a different editor with no involvement from the author-editor, who has no access to the review record.