Innovare Academic Publishing
Editorial Policy
The International Journal of Knowledge, Research and Innovation applies a structured double-blind peer-review process intended to support fair, independent and evidence-based editorial decisions.
Review Model
Under the double-blind model, authors are not informed of reviewer identities and reviewers are not informed of author identities.
Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements and other identifying details from the review version of the manuscript.
Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all associated materials as confidential and must not use unpublished information for personal, professional or competitive advantage.
Review Workflow
01
The editorial office confirms that the manuscript is complete, properly anonymised, within scope and broadly compliant with the submission requirements.
02
An editor evaluates originality, relevance, presentation, ethical compliance and overall suitability before external review.
03
Qualified reviewers are selected according to subject expertise, availability, independence and the absence of conflicting interests.
04
Reviewer and author identities are concealed from one another. Reviewers assess the manuscript confidentially and provide reasoned recommendations.
05
The editor considers the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript and journal policy before issuing an editorial decision.
06
Where revision is requested, authors respond to each comment and submit a revised manuscript. Further review may be required.
07
The editor may accept, request further revision or reject the manuscript based on the evidence available.
08
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, author proof approval and final publication.
Editorial Decisions
The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to any minor production corrections.
Limited changes are required and the editor may assess the revision without another full review round.
Substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original or new reviewers.
The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of scope, quality, originality, methodology, ethics or contribution concerns.
Reviewers are selected using subject expertise, publication history, research profile, previous reviewing experience, availability and independence from the authors or institutions involved.
Editors should avoid reviewers with recent collaboration, supervisory, financial, personal or competitive relationships that may affect impartiality.
Reviewers are normally given a defined review period. Extensions may be granted where justified and communicated promptly.
Actual decision times depend on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision quality and the need for additional review rounds.
Reviewers and editors must disclose any circumstance that could reasonably be perceived as affecting objectivity. Where necessary, the assignment will be declined or reassigned.
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal where they believe a material error occurred in the review or decision process. Disagreement alone does not guarantee reconsideration.
Qualified researchers may apply to join the journal’s reviewer community.
