International Journal of Web Research

Peer Review Policy & Process

International Journal of Web Research (IJWR) is dedicated to implementing double-blind peer reviewing process, in accordance with the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. Additionally, the journal adheres to the codes and principles of publication conduct outlined in the document titled "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" released earlier & updated 15 September 2022 by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

 

Double-blind peer review

IJWR offers a double-blind peer review option. Neither the peer reviewers nor the authors are revealed to each other. Authors may suggest preferred and non-preferred reviewers during manuscript submission. However, the ultimate selection of the reviewers will be determined by the editor(s).

We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors while the manuscript is under consideration without the editor's knowledge. If this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after a reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author.

 

Peer review process

The peer-review process is the primary mechanism for maintaining the quality of published articles. Submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous review to ensure that only high-quality submissions are accepted for publication. Acceptance decisions are not based solely on the scientific validity and originality of the study; other factors are also considered, such as the level of innovation, the significance and relevance of new information compared to other submissions, the journal's goal of covering a broad range of topics, and the overall suitability for the journal. Peer review process is follow as below mention steps:

1. After an initial plagiarism check, the editor(s) review each manuscript to evaluate its novelty, relevance to the readership, and potential for success in the peer-review process. This step helps identify manuscripts better suited for specialized journals, saving time for both authors and reviewers. Authors may be asked to make modifications or corrections before the peer-review process begins.In the second step, editors select typically two reviewers, experts in the topic.
2. The authors can monitor the progress of the manuscript throughout the review process in his/her profile.
3. Submitted manuscripts will be rendered one of the following decisions: Accept Submissions: The submission will be accepted without revisions. Request Revisions (Major/Minor): The submission need changes and may be accepted. Decline Submission: The submission will not be published with the journal.
4. If the author(s) believe that the journal has rejected their article in error, perhaps because the reviewers have misunderstood its scientific content, an appeal may be submitted by e-mail to the editorial office (journal's email). However, appeals are ineffective in most cases and are discouraged.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the quality and advancement of the journal. As part of the double-blind peer review process, reviewers must not disclose their identity under any circumstances.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Declining a Review:
• A reviewer should promptly decline to review an article if:
• The article is technically unqualified.
• A timely review cannot be completed.
• There is a conflict of interest with the article.
2. Confidentiality:
• All submissions must be treated as confidential.
• Editorial approval is required for seeking advice from external sources.
• Reviewers must not share the manuscript with others. If unable to review, they should decline instead of passing the article to another reviewer.
3. Ensuring Quality and Originality:
• Reviewers are key to maintaining the journal's standards.
• They must ensure that articles meet high-quality and originality standards.
• If aware of the manuscript being under review elsewhere, they should inform the editor.
4. Evaluation Approach:
• There are no strict rules for evaluating an article. Each submission should be assessed on a case-by-case basis for its worthiness, quality, and originality.

General Review Checklist

• Does the article comply with the author guidelines?
• Are the purpose and objectives clearly defined?
• Are the introduction and conclusions/suggestions adequate?
• Are references provided to substantiate the content?
• Is the grammar, punctuation, and spelling accurate?
• Are there any plagiarism concerns?
• Is the article suitable for the journal’s scope?
• Does the article demonstrate originality and novelty in its findings or approach?
• Is the methodology appropriate, clearly described, and robust enough to support the findings?

 

 Reviewer Comments

The acceptance or rejection of an article largely depends on the reviewer’s comments, making them a critical part of the peer-review process. Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, unbiased feedback to enhance the quality of the journal and its publications.

 

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

All manuscripts at IJWR undergo a double-blind peer review process. We believe peer review is the cornerstone of maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.

 

Role of the Reviewer

As a reviewer, your role is to advise the editors (Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief) who make the final decision, often with input from the editorial committee for research and analysis articles. You will be informed of the editorial decision, and constructive comments will be shared with authors to help them improve their work, even if the manuscript is not accepted.

 

Confidentiality

All unpublished manuscripts are confidential. If invited to review an article, do not discuss it with anyone, including colleagues. When you receive a review invitation:

• Complete the journal’s reviewing form.
• Respond to all review invitations promptly.
• If the paper is outside your expertise or you cannot devote the necessary time, inform the editorial office immediately so an alternative reviewer can be invited. You may suggest a qualified colleague at this stage.

 

Timeliness

Prompt responses are critical to ensuring timely decisions for authors. Delays in reviewer responses can significantly impact the author’s publication timeline.

 

Preparing for Review

Before reviewing, carefully read the journal’s Aims and Scope and Author Guidelines to assess whether the paper is suitable for IJWR. 

 

Providing Constructive Feedback

The primary goal of your review is to offer helpful and constructive feedback. Reviewers should provide objective and critical evaluations of the manuscript while being respectful and polite. Comments should:

• Be clear and understandable, even for non-native English speakers.
• Avoid overly complex or uncommon words.
• Be organized with numbered points, referencing specific page and line numbers where necessary.
• Focus on specific parts of the manuscript if requested, clearly indicating which sections.
• Treat the author’s work with the same respect you would expect for your own.

Recommendations

In your review, you should:

• Complete the journal’s reviewing form with detailed answers to the provided questions.
• Suggest revisions if improvements can make the paper acceptable. Provide specific recommendations for improvement.
• Recommend rejection if the manuscript lacks sufficient quality or potential for improvement.

If applicable, indicate whether the manuscript requires grammar, punctuation, or spelling corrections in Persian or English.

Additional Notes

• Reviewers should submit their Reviewer Score Sheet, which is seen only by the editors.
• Comments will be shared with authors to help them refine their manuscripts.

Thank you for your invaluable contributions to IJWR’s commitment to scholarly excellence.

Privacy and Confidentiality 

In IJWR, manuscripts must be reviewed with full respect for authors' confidentiality. By submitting their work for review, authors trust editors with the results of their scientific research and creative efforts, which may impact their reputation and career. Disclosure of confidential details during the review process could violate authors' rights. Reviewers also have the right to confidentiality, which editors must respect.

Confidentiality may be breached only if there are allegations of dishonesty or fraud; otherwise, it must be maintained. Editors must not share information about manuscripts (including receipt, content, review status, reviewer comments, or final decision) with anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use manuscript materials for legal proceedings.

Editors must inform reviewers that manuscripts are privileged communications and the private property of the authors. Reviewers and editorial staff must not publicly discuss the authors' work or use their ideas before publication. Reviewers should not make copies of manuscripts for their records or share them with others, except with the editor’s permission. After submitting their reviews, reviewers should return or destroy manuscript copies. Editors should not retain copies of rejected manuscripts. Reviewer comments should not be published or publicized without the consent of the reviewer, author, and editor.

Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process

Although we follow a double-blind peer review process, the research community can be a small world, meaning that many reviewers may be familiar with the author’s work. While you can provide a fair assessment of an article written by a colleague or competitor, please keep the following in mind:

• If there is a significant conflict of interest, disclose it to the editor.
• If the conflict of interest introduces a strong positive or negative bias, it is better to decline the review request.
• Avoid personal judgment or criticism – focus on assessing the article. This approach is more likely to be well-received by the author and will encourage improvements in their work.
• Editors will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if it means they need to find a replacement reviewer.

If you have any concerns regarding conflicts of interest or ethical issues with the paper, please contact the Editorial Office at the journal’s official email.

If you have any concerns regarding conflicts of interest or ethical issues with the paper, please contact the Editorial Office at the journal’s official email.