IJRDO – Journal of Language, Gender and Literature Studies

Peer Review Policy • Double-Blind Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

IJRDO journals follow an editorial assessment and double-blind peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, scholarly contribution, and academic integrity of submitted manuscripts.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is initially assessed by the Editorial Office and/or an appropriate member or committee of the editorial team.

The initial assessment considers whether the manuscript:

• falls within the journal's aims and scope;
• meets the journal's basic submission and formatting requirements;
• demonstrates sufficient originality and scholarly contribution;
• meets appropriate academic and ethical standards; and
• is suitable for consideration through external peer review.

Manuscripts may be rejected at the initial screening stage if they are outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential editorial or academic requirements, lack sufficient scholarly contribution, raise significant ethical or integrity concerns, or are otherwise unsuitable for publication.

Authors can normally aim to receive an initial editorial decision within 1–2 weeks of submission, depending on the journal and the complexity of the initial assessment.

Where appropriate, authors may be invited to make preliminary corrections or revisions before a decision is made regarding external peer review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to independent experts with appropriate subject expertise.

IJRDO follows a double-blind peer review system in which, as far as reasonably possible, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another.

Each manuscript sent for external peer review will normally be evaluated by at least two qualified independent reviewers. Depending on the subject matter, complexity of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, or other editorial considerations, the journal may seek additional reviews.

The peer-review process is generally expected to take 6–8 weeks after the manuscript is sent for review. However, review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and other circumstances.

Authors should therefore avoid including unnecessary identifying information in manuscripts submitted for double-blind review.

Editorial Decision

Reviewer reports and recommendations form an important part of the editorial decision-making process. However, reviewers provide recommendations rather than publication decisions.

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief under the journal's editorial policies.

Editors may request additional reviews or clarification where necessary before reaching a final decision.

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the quality, reliability, originality, and academic integrity of IJRDO publications.

Reviewers are expected to provide a fair, independent, objective, confidential, and constructive assessment of manuscripts.

A reviewer should decline an invitation as soon as reasonably possible if:

• the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise;
• they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
• they believe they cannot provide an objective assessment.

Confidentiality of Manuscripts

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not, without appropriate authorization:

• share or distribute the manuscript;
• disclose the contents of the manuscript to others;
• use unpublished information, data, methods, ideas, or findings obtained through the review process for personal or professional benefit;
• copy or retain manuscript material beyond what is reasonably necessary to complete the review;
• discuss the manuscript publicly before publication; or
• use the manuscript for purposes unrelated to the peer-review process.

Reviewers should not independently forward a manuscript to another person for review. If a reviewer believes that assistance from another expert is necessary, they should obtain prior permission from the Editorial Office.

Research and Publication Integrity

Reviewers should promptly notify the Editor if they identify concerns relating to:

• plagiarism or substantial similarity with previously published work;
• duplicate or simultaneous submission;
• fabrication or falsification of data;
• inappropriate image manipulation;
• authorship or contributorship concerns;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• research ethics or informed-consent concerns, where applicable;
• serious methodological or scholarly deficiencies; or
• other potential breaches of research or publication integrity.

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

IJRDO considers peer review an essential mechanism for maintaining the quality, reliability, and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Reviewers should provide a fair, independent, detailed, and constructive assessment of the manuscript. Reviews should focus on the scholarly content of the submission rather than on the authors personally.

Reviewers should:

• read the manuscript carefully and objectively;
• assess whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal's aims and scope;
• evaluate the originality and scholarly contribution of the work;
• assess the appropriateness and rigor of the methodology, where applicable;
• identify significant methodological, conceptual, or interpretive concerns;
• provide clear, specific, and constructive comments;
• distinguish major and minor concerns where possible;
• explain the basis for their recommendation;
• avoid offensive, discriminatory, personal, or unnecessarily harsh language;
• identify relevant ethical or publication-integrity concerns;
• notify the Editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified information, or other serious concerns; and
• maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Reviewers are encouraged to write comments clearly and professionally so that they can be understood by authors from different linguistic and academic backgrounds.

Where possible, specific comments should identify relevant sections, pages, tables, figures, or line numbers of the manuscript.

Reviewers should treat authors' work with the same professional respect, fairness, and objectivity that they would expect for their own work.

Reviewer Recommendations

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept

The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive revision, subject to any necessary editorial or formatting corrections.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited revisions or clarifications before it can be considered for acceptance.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revisions. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent for further peer review before an editorial decision is reached.

Reject

The manuscript has substantial limitations, does not meet the journal's publication requirements, falls outside the journal's scope, or is otherwise unsuitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final publication decision. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or appropriately authorized editorial authority after consideration of the reviewer reports, manuscript quality, editorial requirements, and relevant ethical or publication-integrity considerations.

Confidentiality and Privacy

All unpublished manuscripts must be treated as confidential. Authors submit manuscripts with the expectation that their work, ideas, data, methods, and other unpublished information will be protected during the editorial and peer-review process.

Information concerning a manuscript—including its submission, contents, review status, reviewer reports, reviewer identity, editorial discussions, and editorial decision—should not be disclosed to individuals who are not authorized to receive such information.

Reviewers must not:

• share manuscripts with colleagues or other individuals without prior permission;
• distribute unpublished manuscript material;
• use unpublished information, data, methods, or ideas obtained through peer review for their own research or professional benefit;
• publicly discuss the manuscript before publication;
• use manuscript content for purposes unrelated to the review; or
• publish, reproduce, or distribute reviewer comments without appropriate authorization.

Where appropriate and permitted by the Editorial Office, reviewers may be instructed to delete or destroy manuscript copies and related confidential materials after completing the review.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the impartiality of their assessment.

A conflict of interest may arise from, but is not limited to:

• a personal or professional relationship with an author;
• recent collaboration with an author;
• current or recent institutional relationships;
• financial interests;
• direct competition or professional rivalry;
• significant academic or intellectual interests; or
• other circumstances that could reasonably create a risk of bias.

If a conflict of interest could materially affect the reviewer's objectivity, the reviewer should decline the review invitation.

Reviewers should not allow personal opinions about an author, institution, country, research group, discipline, or academic field to influence their assessment.

The review should focus on the manuscript's scholarly quality, methodology, evidence, interpretation, originality, and relevance.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Because manuscripts submitted for review are confidential, reviewers must not upload or otherwise disclose unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, or confidential manuscript information to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other external AI tools unless expressly authorized by the journal.

Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, and integrity of their reviews, regardless of whether any authorized technological tools are used in preparing them.

AI-generated content must not replace the reviewer's own expert assessment and professional judgment.

Reviewers should disclose any use of AI-assisted tools where required by the journal's policies or the instructions provided with the review invitation.

Editorial Independence and Final Responsibility

Peer reviewers provide independent expert advice to the editorial team. Reviewer recommendations are considered together with the manuscript, editorial assessment, ethical considerations, and other relevant information.

No reviewer recommendation automatically determines the outcome of a manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief or appropriately authorized editorial authority retains responsibility for the final editorial decision and for ensuring that decisions are made fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.

Questions and Ethical Concerns

Questions concerning peer review, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, reviewer conduct, research ethics, or publication integrity should be directed to the relevant IJRDO Editorial Office.

The journal may seek additional information, independent advice, or further review where necessary to resolve significant ethical or publication-integrity concerns.

Ethical Responsibility

Throughout the peer-review process, IJRDO is committed to maintaining confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and responsible editorial decision-making.

All participants in the process are expected to uphold:

• Confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials
• Fair and objective evaluation
• Transparency in editorial communication
• Disclosure and appropriate management of conflicts of interest
• Research and publication integrity
• Respect for authors, reviewers, and editorial staff

IJRDO – Journal of Language, Gender and Literature Studies
Double-Blind Peer Review • Academic Integrity • Ethical Scholarly Publishing