Peer Review Process
IJDCR operates a structured and transparent peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, and ethical integrity.
Peer review model
IJDCR uses a double-blind peer review system in which:
- Author identities are concealed from reviewers
- Reviewer identities are concealed from authors
This approach is designed to reduce bias and support impartial evaluation.
Review stages
- Initial editorial screening
- Scope alignment
- Academic relevance
- Basic methodological soundness
- Compliance with ethical and formatting requirements
Submissions that fail at this stage may be rejected without external review.
- External peer review
- Each eligible manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts
- Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and absence of conflicts of interest
- Editorial decision
- The handling editor evaluates reviewer reports
- The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision
Possible editorial decisions
- Accept without revision
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject
Authors receive anonymised reviewer comments and clear guidance for revisions.
Review timeline
- Initial editorial decision: typically within 2–4 weeks
- Full peer review and decision: typically within 3–4 months
Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and submission volume.
Reviewer responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- Maintain confidentiality
- Provide objective, evidence-based evaluations
- Avoid personal or discriminatory language
- Declare conflicts of interest
- Complete reviews within agreed timelines
Reviewer guidance follows COPE principles:
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines
Editorial independence and appeals
Editorial decisions are final but authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe a decision was based on a factual or procedural error. Appeals are reviewed independently by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated senior editor not involved in the original decision.
