pr

Peer review is the evaluation of work submitted by single or multiple people of same or similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). The review process in IRJEAS for is carried out by corresponding peers who follow publication ethics and common good practices of article reviewing. IRJEAS relies on qualified members of a profession/trade/major/stream within the relevant field. Peer review practices and methods are adopted in order to maintain standards of quality, verifying authenticity of furnished data and hence making an article citable and credible.

All papers received are assigned a unique id and are submitted to a peer review process. The Editors may discard some manuscripts from the outright due to very low quality or in case of conflict with any of journal’s policies.

At IRJEAS, we have adopted a DOUBLE BLIND Review system so as there is no influence of authors as well as reviewers on the review process and it remains completely honest and no manipulation is possible.

Taking in consideration its subjects (Aim & Scope of Journal) and plagiarism detection, the papers passing this preliminary screening will be remitted to a panel of referees involved in those research areas. Each paper will be reviewed by at least two referees.

After evaluation, the referees will produce reports about the works reviewed, by which the papers can be

a) Accepted with modifications or corrections;

b) Approved as they are or

c) Rejected from the start. In case that the papers proposed are accepted but in need of modifications or corrections, the Editors will return the manuscripts to the authors, together with the referee’s reports and all the suggestions, recommendations and comments therein.

To secure impartiality during the review process, all papers, as remitted to the referees, will be anonymous. Moreover, the referees’ identities will not be known, neither by the rest of the evaluation panel, nor by the authors.

The final decision concerning the publication of papers belongs to the Editorial Board, having the referees a consultative role.

Important – At IRJEAS, we have adopted a DOUBLE BLIND Review system so as there is no influence of authors as well as reviewers on the review process and it remains completely honest and no manipulation is possible.

An overview on review methods

There are various methods of peer review with their names as explained below-

Single Blind Review

The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author.

Advantage:
Reviewer anonymity Reviewers make impartial decisions as no influence is free from influence by the author.

Disadvantages:
Authors fear the risk that reviewers working in the same field may withhold submission of the review in order to delay publication, thereby giving the reviewer the opportunity to publish first.

Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the author’s work.

Double Blind Review

Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous.

Advantages:
Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias based on, for example, an author’s country of origin or previous controversial work.

Articles written by ‘prestigious’ or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than on the author’s reputation.

Disadvantage:
It is uncertain whether a paper can ever truly be ‘blind’ – especially in specialty ‘niche’ areas. Reviewers can often identify the author through the paper’s style, subject matter or self-citation.

Open Review

Reviewer and author are known to each other.

Advantage:
Some scientists feel this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from drawing upon their own ‘agenda’ and encourage open, honest reviewing.

Disadvantage:
Others argue the opposite view. They see open review as a less honest process in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For example, junior reviewers may hesitate to criticize more esteemed authors for fear of damaging their prospects. Independent studies tend to support this.