Peer Review Process for German International Journals

The Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Innovations (JMSI) and the International Journal of Political Sciences and Economics (IJPSE) are committed to maintaining a high standard of academic integrity and quality in all the research they publish. Both journals follow a double-blind peer review process, ensuring unbiased evaluations of manuscripts by independent experts in the field. This process promotes transparency, accountability, and the scholarly rigor required for high-quality academic publication.

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Review

  • Submission: Authors submit their manuscript through the journal’s online submission system. The submission should include all necessary documents, including the manuscript, title page, abstract, keywords, and a cover letter.
  • Editorial Assessment: Once a manuscript is submitted, the editorial team performs an initial review to assess whether the manuscript fits within the journal’s scope, and meets the submission and formatting requirements.
    • If the manuscript is deemed unsuitable or does not comply with the submission guidelines, it may be rejected without undergoing peer review.
    • If it meets the initial criteria, the manuscript moves forward for peer review.

2. Selection of Peer Reviewers

  • Double-Blind Review: Both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other. The identities of the authors are hidden from the reviewers, and vice versa, to ensure an unbiased review process.
  • Expert Reviewers: The editorial team selects at least two expert reviewers who are specialists in the subject area of the manuscript. These reviewers are chosen based on their knowledge, expertise, and professional background in the field.
  • Reviewer Selection Criteria: Reviewers are selected based on the following:
    • Relevant academic or professional experience.
    • Recent publications or active engagement in the subject area.
    • No conflicts of interest with the authors or the manuscript.

3. Peer Review Process

  • Reviewers’ Responsibilities: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

    • Scientific Quality: The originality, significance, and contribution of the research. Reviewers assess whether the research is well-designed, the methodology is appropriate, and the conclusions drawn are supported by the data.
    • Relevance: The relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope and the interests of its readership.
    • Clarity: The organization, readability, and clarity of the manuscript, including its language, structure, and flow.
    • Ethical Considerations: Ethical standards in research, such as consent for human or animal studies, and adherence to appropriate guidelines in data collection and reporting.
    • References and Literature: The adequacy and accuracy of the references, and whether the manuscript adequately acknowledges prior work in the field.

  • Review Format: Reviewers provide detailed feedback and a recommendation based on their evaluation. They can recommend:

    • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with no or minimal revisions.
    • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor changes, which can be easily addressed by the authors.
    • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are needed before reconsideration for publication.
    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to significant issues in quality, methodology, or relevance.

  • Timeliness: Reviewers are given a set period, typically 2-3 weeks, to submit their evaluation. If additional time is required, reviewers must inform the editorial team in advance.

4. Editorial Decision

  • Compilation of Reviews: Once the peer reviews are received, the editorial team reviews the comments and recommendations from the reviewers.

  • Final Decision: The editor-in-chief or managing editor makes the final decision on the manuscript, which can include:

    • Accept as is: The manuscript is accepted without any changes.
    • Minor revisions required: The manuscript requires small changes, and the authors are given a chance to revise and resubmit.
    • Major revisions required: The manuscript needs significant changes, and the authors are asked to revise and resubmit, addressing all the concerns raised by the reviewers.
    • Reject: If the manuscript does not meet the necessary academic standards or is not suitable for publication in the journal, it will be rejected.

  • Communication to Authors: The editor communicates the final decision to the corresponding author through the journal's online submission system. The authors will receive the reviewers’ comments (anonymously) and feedback, along with the editorial decision.

5. Revision and Resubmission

  • Revisions: If the manuscript requires revisions, authors must address the reviewers' feedback thoroughly. The revised manuscript should be resubmitted with a detailed response letter, explaining how each comment has been addressed, or if a suggestion has not been followed, providing a justification.
  • Second Round of Review: In the case of major revisions, the manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers (or additional reviewers, if necessary) for a second round of review. Reviewers assess whether the revisions meet the journal's standards and whether the manuscript is now ready for publication.

6. Final Acceptance and Publication

  • Final Decision: If the revised manuscript is accepted, the editor will inform the authors, and the article moves toward the final stages of publication.
  • Proofreading and Formatting: The accepted manuscript will undergo final proofreading and formatting for consistency with the journal’s style guide. Authors will be sent proofs of their article for final approval.
  • Open Access Publication: As an open-access journal, the accepted manuscript will be made freely available online after publication. The article will be assigned to an issue or published in advance of print.

7. Ethical Considerations

  • Conflicts of Interest: Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If a conflict of interest arises during the review process, the relevant parties must recuse themselves from the review or editorial decision.
  • Plagiarism and Data Integrity: All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using specialized software. Authors are expected to submit only original work. If any misconduct, such as data falsification or plagiarism, is identified, the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors may face a ban from future submissions.
  • Corrections and Retractions: If errors or ethical issues are discovered in a published article, corrections or retractions will be published as necessary, following COPE guidelines.

8. Transparency and Appeals

  • Transparency: The journal is committed to transparency in the peer review process. Authors can contact the editorial office to clarify any aspects of the review process, and will be informed of the reviewer feedback and editorial decision.
  • Appeal Process: Authors have the right to appeal any editorial decision. To appeal, authors should submit a formal request to the editor-in-chief, providing a detailed explanation of the reasons for the appeal. The editorial team will review the appeal and provide a final decision.

By following this comprehensive and transparent double-blind peer review process, both Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Innovations (JMSI) and International Journal of Political Sciences and Economics (IJPSE) ensure that only high-quality, ethically sound research is published. This process fosters academic rigor, promotes scholarly exchange, and upholds the integrity of the research community.