The "Xpertno International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research" is committed to ensuring the academic and scientific rigor of all published articles. Our peer review process is conducted in three structured phases to ensure fairness, subject alignment, and publication quality. The journal employs a double-blind review process, which means:

• The authors are unaware of the identity of the reviewers.
• The reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors.

 

Phase 1: Editorial Screening and Pre-Review Assessment (3-7 business days)

All submitted manuscripts are initially handled by the editorial team.

• This phase includes:
• Checking formatting, completeness, and adherence to submission guidelines.
• Ensuring the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope.
• checking Plagiarism
• Verifying removal of author-identifiable content to maintain double-blind integrity.
• If the manuscript meets initial criteria:
• It is forwarded to editors for preliminary academic assessment.
• If the manuscript falls outside the editorial team’s expertise, advice is sought from advisory board members with appropriate specialization.
• If deemed suitable, the manuscript proceeds to Phase 2.

 

Phase 2: Double-Blind Peer Review (10-25 business days)

• The editorial team identifies 5–7 potential reviewers, including:
• At least 3-5 field experts (senior researchers).
• 2 early-career researchers with relevant academic contributions.
• The manuscript is sent to reviewers via our double-blind system.

• The first two expert reviewers and one early-career researcher who accept the invitation are selected, depending on availability.

• Final review assignments typically include:
• 2 expert reviewers
• 1 early-career researcher.
• All reviewers are expected to:
• Provide an unbiased, constructive review within 10–25 business days (2–5 weeks).
• Evaluate the manuscript’s originality, relevance, methodology, and contribution.

 

Phase 3: Review Compilation and Editorial Decision

• Upon receiving all reviewer reports:
• The editorial team compiles the comments into a unified feedback document.
• Common concerns, strengths, and improvement points are highlighted.
• This compiled report is shared with the author(s) for revision.
• Authors are asked to:
• Submit a revised manuscript
• Provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment.
• The revised manuscript may undergo a second round of review, if necessary.
• Based on reviewer feedback and editorial evaluation, the manuscript is placed in one of the following categories: 
• Accept Without Revisions: The manuscript meets all criteria and can be published as is.
• Minor revisions: The manuscript will be accepted after minor changes.
• Major revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires significant changes.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is not suitable for it.

 

Expected Timeline

• We aim to complete the peer review process (stage 2) within 10–25 business days (approximately 2–5 weeks). However, exceptions might occur due to unforeseen circumstances. The authors will be kept informed about any delays.
• This estimate accounts only for the review stage 2. Additional time is required for the following steps:
• Editorial decision and author notification - Stage 1 (3-7 business days)
• Author revisions and resubmission (depends on authors)
• Final acceptance (3-5 business days)
• Copyediting, formatting, and typesetting (2-3 business days)
• Scheduling for publication (immediate)
• If the review reports and author revisions are received promptly, the overall time to publication is significantly reduced.
• We are committed to keeping authors informed throughout the process and promptly notifying them of any delays or required clarifications.

 

Appeals

If authors disagree with the decision, they are entitled to appeal. The appeal should be based on academic or scientific reasons. The editorial team will consider the appeal and may seek input from the reviewers or other experts as needed.

Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. They are not shared or discussed with others unless authorized by the editorial team to seek advice from the advisory board or another blind peer reviewer.

 

The "Xpertno International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research" continuously refines its peer review process to align with best practices and the evolving needs of the academic community.

Criteria for Reviewer Selection and Reviewer Responsibilities: Click to Read