Peer Review Policy

1. Principles of Peer Review

The International Journal of Multidisciplinary Inquiry (IJMI) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent peer review process. Peer review forms an essential component of the journal's editorial assessment and contributes to the quality, credibility, and scholarly integrity of published research.

IJMI operates a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are ordinarily concealed from one another. This arrangement is intended to support impartial evaluation and reduce the potential influence of personal, institutional, or professional considerations on the assessment of manuscripts.

All manuscripts are evaluated according to their academic merit, relevance to the journal's scope, originality, methodological appropriateness, analytical quality, and contribution to knowledge. Editorial decisions are made independently of financial considerations, institutional affiliations, or other interests unrelated to scholarly quality.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before being considered for external peer review. This assessment is coordinated by the Managing Editor and, where appropriate, the relevant Editor-in-Chief.

The initial screening considers whether the manuscript falls within the journal's disciplinary scope, satisfies the relevant submission requirements, demonstrates an appropriate standard of academic writing, and presents a sufficiently developed scholarly contribution.

The editorial team also examines the completeness of the submission, including manuscript files, author information, required declarations, and relevant ethical documentation. Similarity screening may be undertaken where appropriate tools and arrangements are available. Any similarity findings are assessed in context and do not independently determine the outcome of editorial screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's minimum requirements may be returned to the authors for clarification or improvement, or declined without external review. A decision not to proceed to peer review does not necessarily indicate research misconduct or a lack of scholarly value.

3. Assignment of Manuscripts and Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are assigned to an Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately authorized editor with relevant disciplinary expertise. In a multidisciplinary journal, editorial assignments take account of the subject matter, research approach, and expertise required for an informed evaluation.

The handling editor is responsible for identifying suitably qualified reviewers whose academic background, research experience, or professional expertise is relevant to the manuscript.

IJMI normally seeks assessments from at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript proceeding through external peer review. Additional reviewers may be invited where the subject matter requires specialized expertise, reviewer recommendations differ substantially, or further evaluation is considered necessary.

Reviewer selection is based on scholarly competence, independence, and the ability to provide a constructive assessment. The journal may consider reviewer suggestions provided by authors, but retains full discretion over reviewer appointments.

Editors must take reasonable steps to identify potential conflicts of interest and avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers whose relationships or interests could compromise the independence of the assessment.

4. Double-Blind Review and Confidentiality

IJMI applies double-blind review to support independent scholarly evaluation. Authors are required to prepare a blinded manuscript that excludes names, institutional affiliations, contact details, acknowledgements, and other information that could directly identify them.

Identifying information is submitted separately through the journal's designated submission requirements and is retained for editorial administration.

Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and associated materials received during the review process. Unpublished findings, research data, arguments, and other scholarly content must not be disclosed, reproduced, or used for personal or professional benefit without appropriate authorization.

Editors are similarly responsible for protecting confidential manuscript information and ensuring that access is restricted to individuals involved in legitimate editorial and publishing activities.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly where a manuscript's subject matter, prior dissemination, or cited work may permit identification.

5. Responsibilities and Standards of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and academically reasoned evaluations. Their assessments should address the manuscript's scholarly contribution and identify substantive strengths, limitations, and areas requiring clarification or improvement.

Depending on the nature of the submission, reviewers should consider the relevance and clarity of the research problem or review purpose, engagement with existing scholarship, appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual approach, suitability of the methodology, quality of evidence and analysis, coherence of the discussion, and validity of the conclusions.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions affecting scholarly quality and optional recommendations reflecting individual preferences. Criticism must be expressed professionally and should focus on the manuscript rather than the personal characteristics or institutional background of its authors.

A reviewer who considers a manuscript outside their expertise, identifies a competing interest, or cannot complete the assessment within the agreed timeframe should promptly notify the editorial team.

Reviewers must not disclose or upload confidential manuscripts to external generative artificial intelligence services without explicit authorization from the journal and appropriate safeguards. Any permitted use of technological assistance must not compromise confidentiality, independence, or the reviewer's responsibility for the evaluation.

Where suspected plagiarism, undisclosed duplication, fabricated evidence, ethical deficiencies, or other serious concerns are identified, reviewers should communicate these matters confidentially to the handling editor.

6. Review Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Following their evaluation, reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, further review, or rejection, depending on the manuscript's academic quality and the nature of any identified concerns.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial process but do not constitute binding decisions. The handling editor considers the substance of the reports, the manuscript's scholarly merits, and the journal's publication standards before recommending or making an editorial decision within the authority assigned to that role.

Where reviewer assessments differ substantially, the editor may examine the reasons for disagreement, request additional clarification, or invite another independent reviewer.

Editorial decisions may include acceptance, a request for revisions, rejection, or other appropriate outcomes supported by the journal's editorial workflow. Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript has satisfied the applicable scholarly, ethical, and editorial requirements.

IJMI does not guarantee acceptance following peer review or revision. The completion of a review process does not create an entitlement to publication.

7. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the editorial and reviewer comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe communicated by the journal.

Authors should provide a clear response explaining how the comments have been addressed. Where a recommendation has not been adopted, an academically reasoned explanation should be provided.

The handling editor assesses whether the revised manuscript adequately addresses the substantive concerns identified during evaluation. Depending on the extent and nature of the revisions, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, referred to additional reviewers, or assessed editorially without another external review.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance. Manuscripts may be declined where significant scholarly or ethical concerns remain unresolved, or where the revisions do not sufficiently satisfy the journal's requirements.

8. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose actual or potential competing interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the impartiality of the peer review process.

Such interests may arise from financial relationships, professional collaborations, institutional affiliations, personal connections, or other relevant circumstances. Disclosure enables the journal to determine whether an individual can participate appropriately in the assessment.

Editors must not manage the review or publication decision for manuscripts in which they have a direct competing interest. Where a manuscript is submitted by an Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or another member of the editorial team, responsibility for its assessment must be transferred to an appropriately qualified and independent editor.

Editorial decisions must remain independent of article processing charges, financial arrangements, institutional influence, and other commercial considerations.

9. Review Timelines and Communication

IJMI seeks to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining appropriate academic standards. The duration of the review process may vary according to manuscript complexity, disciplinary requirements, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions requested.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed period for manuscript acceptance or publication. Authors will be informed of editorial decisions and significant requests through the journal's designated communication channels.

Reviewers are expected to complete their assignments within the agreed period or notify the editorial team promptly where additional time is required.

Where delays occur, the editorial team may seek alternative reviewers or take other reasonable measures to maintain the progress of the manuscript.

10. Appeals, Ethical Concerns, and Review Integrity

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they identify a substantive factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or other reasonable grounds for reconsideration. Appeals should provide a clear explanation and relevant supporting information.

An appeal does not automatically result in a new review or reversal of the original decision. Where practicable, the matter will be assessed by an appropriately qualified editor who was not directly responsible for the decision under consideration.

Concerns involving reviewer misconduct, breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed competing interests, inappropriate reviewer conduct, or manipulation of the peer review process will be examined in accordance with IJMI's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

The journal reserves the right to disregard compromised reviews, appoint replacement reviewers, reconsider an editorial decision, or take other proportionate action where the integrity of the review process has been affected.

IJMI may periodically review its peer review procedures to maintain consistency with developments in scholarly publishing and the operational needs of the journal.