Peer Review Process

NGR Publisher Peer Review Process

At NGR Publisher, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, fairness, and transparency throughout our peer review process. We utilize a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to minimize bias and uphold objectivity.

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

Submission Check: Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial team to verify alignment with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and ethical guidelines.
Desk Rejection: Submissions that fall outside the journal’s focus or fail to meet the minimum criteria may be rejected without external review. Authors will be notified promptly in such cases.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Anonymity Maintained: To foster impartial evaluations, the identities of both reviewers and authors remain confidential throughout the review process.
Reviewer Assignment: The editor assigns each manuscript to at least two independent experts selected based on their subject expertise, qualifications, and familiarity with the topic.
Confidentiality Assurance: Reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not discuss or share them beyond the editorial process.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to provide a fair and comprehensive critique of the manuscript, taking into account:

• Originality: Does the study present new insights or contributions to the field?

• Clarity: Is the manuscript well-structured and clearly articulating its goals, methods, and conclusions?

• Methodological Rigor: Are the research methods appropriate and properly executed?

• Data Integrity: Are the data and results accurate, and do they support the conclusions drawn?

• Relevance: Is the work significant and meaningful within its academic discipline?

• References: Are the citations current, relevant, and correctly formatted?

Constructive feedback is encouraged to help authors refine and improve their work.

4. Review Outcomes

Based on their evaluation, reviewers will recommend one of the following:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with or without minor revisions.

• Minor Revisions: Small corrections or clarifications are needed before acceptance.

• Major Revisions: Significant modifications are required before reconsideration.

• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form.

5. Revisions and Resubmission

Minor Revisions: Authors are generally given 1–2 weeks to submit the revised manuscript.
Major Revisions: For extensive revisions, a 4–6 week period is usually provided. Authors must submit a revised version along with a detailed response to each reviewer comment.
Reevaluation: The revised manuscript is re-reviewed, often by the same reviewers, to ensure that their concerns have been addressed adequately.

6. Editorial Decision

Final Verdict: Taking into account both the reviewers’ feedback and their own evaluation, the editor makes the final decision on acceptance, further revision, or rejection.
Communication: The decision and any accompanying reviewer comments are shared with the corresponding author.

7. Appeals Procedure

Submitting an Appeal: If authors wish to contest a decision, they may submit a detailed appeal explaining their position.
Reassessment: The editorial team will review the appeal, and if justified, the manuscript may be reconsidered. This could involve further peer review or reassignment to a different editor.

8. Post-Acceptance Processing

Proofing and Production: After acceptance, the manuscript is forwarded to the production team for formatting, proofreading, and final preparation for publication.
Author Approval: Galley proofs are sent to the authors for final review and approval before online publication.

9. Reviewer Recognition

Acknowledging Contributions: NGR Publisher values the critical role of peer reviewers. Those who deliver high-quality, timely reviews may receive certificates of appreciation and opportunities to serve in future editorial or reviewing roles.