Effective Date: July 2026
IIS Journal is committed to a fair, transparent, timely, and rigorous peer review process that ensures the publication of high-quality scholarly research. Every submission is evaluated solely on its academic merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
The peer review process is designed to support authors through constructive feedback while maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.
1. Submission Routes
Authors may submit their work through one of the following pathways:
- Direct submission of a full manuscript through the journal’s online submission system.
- Submission of an abstract in response to a Call for Abstracts, followed by an invitation to submit a full manuscript where applicable.
Acceptance of an abstract or invitation to submit a full manuscript does not guarantee acceptance for publication. Every full manuscript undergoes the journal’s standard editorial and peer review process.
2. Initial Editorial Assessment
Following submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial screening to verify that the manuscript:
- falls within the scope of the journal;
- complies with the Author Guidelines;
- contains all required submission information and supporting documents;
- meets basic formatting requirements;
- satisfies ethical and administrative requirements.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial review or declined without external review.
3. Editorial Screening
The handling editor evaluates the manuscript to determine whether it is suitable for peer review.
This assessment considers:
- originality and significance of the research;
- relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
- scientific and methodological quality;
- clarity of presentation;
- compliance with publication ethics.
At this stage, the editor may:
- send the manuscript for peer review;
- request preliminary revisions before review;
- decline the manuscript where it is unsuitable for further consideration.
4. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, research interests, and absence of conflicts of interest.
The Editorial Office seeks reviewers who can provide independent, objective, and constructive evaluations of the submitted work.
Reviewer invitations are managed through the journal’s online system. Reviewers may accept or decline an invitation before gaining access to the manuscript.
5. Review Model
IIS Journal normally operates a single-blind peer review process.
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Where the journal’s review settings require author anonymity, identifying author information is withheld from reviewers whenever reasonably possible.
The journal reserves the right to apply an alternative review model where appropriate for a particular publication programme or special issue.
6. Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers must not:
- share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals;
- disclose unpublished findings;
- use confidential information for personal or professional advantage;
- distribute manuscript files outside the review process.
Reviewer comments intended only for editors remain confidential.
7. Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to factors including:
- originality;
- significance and contribution to knowledge;
- scientific methodology;
- technical quality;
- clarity of writing;
- quality of data and analysis;
- validity of conclusions;
- quality of references;
- ethical compliance.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive recommendations that assist authors in improving their work.
8. Reviewer Recommendations
Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests solely with the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief.
9. Editorial Decision
The editor considers:
- reviewer reports;
- reviewer recommendations;
- editorial assessment;
- journal policies;
- publication ethics.
Possible editorial decisions include:
- Accept;
- Minor Revision;
- Major Revision;
- Reject;
- Desk Reject.
Authors receive the editorial decision together with reviewer comments where applicable.
10. Revision Process
Where revisions are requested, authors should:
- address each reviewer comment carefully;
- explain how comments have been addressed;
- clearly identify changes made to the manuscript;
- submit revised files within the requested timeframe.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers if additional evaluation is required.
11. Final Acceptance
A manuscript is accepted only after the editor is satisfied that:
- reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed;
- publication standards have been met;
- required declarations have been completed;
- all editorial requirements have been fulfilled.
Acceptance signifies that the manuscript has successfully completed editorial and peer review but does not necessarily mean immediate publication.
12. Production and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed through the production process, which may include:
- copyediting;
- formatting and typesetting;
- proofreading;
- author proof review;
- metadata preparation;
- DOI registration;
- final publication.
Authors may be contacted during production to resolve queries or approve publication proofs.
13. Publication
After successful completion of production, the article is published on the IIS Journal website and assigned to the appropriate volume and issue.
Publication metadata may also be deposited with indexing, abstracting, preservation, and identifier registration services in accordance with the journal’s publishing policies.
14. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- conduct objective and unbiased reviews;
- maintain confidentiality;
- disclose conflicts of interest;
- provide constructive and professional feedback;
- complete reviews within agreed timelines.
Reviewers should decline assignments where they are unable to provide an independent or timely evaluation.
15. Author Responsibilities During Review
Authors are expected to:
- cooperate with editorial requests;
- respond respectfully to reviewer comments;
- submit accurate revisions;
- disclose any significant changes made during revision;
- communicate honestly with the editorial office.
Failure to comply with the review process may result in closure or withdrawal of the submission.
16. Appeals
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was affected by a procedural error or significant misunderstanding may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal’s Appeals and Complaints Policy.
Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or reversal of the editorial decision.
17. Publication Ethics
The peer review process operates in conjunction with the journal’s Publication Ethics Policy.
Evidence of plagiarism, fabricated data, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, or manipulation of the peer review process may result in rejection, withdrawal, correction, or retraction of a manuscript.
18. Policy Updates
This Peer Review Process may be updated periodically to reflect improvements in editorial practice, scholarly publishing standards, technological developments, and journal operations.
The most recent version published on the IIS Journal website shall be considered the authoritative version.