Editorial Process
Peer Review Policy
Our review workflow is designed to balance fairness, subject expertise, timely communication, and defensible editorial decisions.
Review Process
Manuscripts are evaluated through a structured editorial workflow that includes an initial editorial assessment followed by independent peer review. Each journal on the IORO platform selects its own peer-review model — single-blind, double-blind, or open review — based on its disciplinary norms and editorial policy. The active review mode is noted in each journal's aims and scope. The platform default, where a journal has not specified otherwise, is single-blind review (reviewer identities are kept confidential from authors; reviewers have access to author names and affiliations to support contextual evaluation).
Initial Editorial Assessment
- Scope and fit with journal aims
- Baseline methodological soundness and reporting completeness
- Originality and potential contribution
- Compliance with ethics and submission requirements
Submissions that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected without external review.
Review Timeline
- Peer review: Typically 3–7 business days
- Editorial decision: Within 2 business days of review completion
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected for subject expertise, methodological competence, and absence of disqualifying conflicts. Editors may invite additional reviewers when reports conflict.
Decision Types
- Accept — Minor or no revisions needed
- Minor Revision — Small changes required before acceptance
- Major Revision — Substantial changes needed; manuscript re-reviewed after revision
- Reject — Does not meet the journal's scope or quality standards
Criteria for Review
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on:
- Originality and significance of the contribution
- Scientific rigour and methodology
- Clarity and organisation of writing
- Adequate literature review and proper citations
- Validity of conclusions drawn from the data
- Ethical compliance and reproducibility transparency
Reviewer Conduct Expectations
- Maintain confidentiality and data security.
- Provide respectful and actionable feedback.
- Avoid discriminatory, ad hominem, or non-scholarly comments.
- Disclose conflicts immediately and decline assignments when necessary.
Revision Round Expectations
Authors should submit a clear point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Editors may return incomplete responses for clarification before re-review.
Appeals
Authors may appeal decisions with a technical, evidence-based statement. Appeals are reviewed case-by-case and may involve additional editorial or external assessment.