Peer Review Process

At IJRMP, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and quality. To ensure rigorous and impartial evaluation, the journal employs a double-blind peer-review system, in which both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process. Each submission is typically reviewed by three experts: two external reviewers and one editorial board member.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in supporting editorial decisions. Their evaluations help the editor determine the suitability of a manuscript for publication and provide constructive feedback that can guide authors in improving the quality and clarity of their work.

  1. Promptness

Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess a manuscript or are unable to complete the review in a timely manner should promptly inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

  1. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript with others unless specifically authorized by the editor.

  1. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and professionally. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should provide clear, reasoned, and evidence-based comments to support their evaluations.

  1. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any claim that a finding, method, or discussion has been previously reported must be supported by a proper citation. In addition, reviewers should inform the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other published work they are aware of.

  1. Reviewer Misconduct

IJRMP takes allegations of reviewer misconduct seriously. Breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest (whether financial or personal), misuse of confidential materials, or intentional delay of the review process for competitive advantage will be thoroughly investigated and addressed.