INSS Press INSS Press

Peer Review Policy

1. Review Models and Expert Selection

INSS Press journals primarily employ a Double-Blind Peer Review model to ensure the highest level of impartiality.

  • Expertise Requirement: Every manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Reviewers are selected based on their publication record, H-index, and verified expertise in the specific sub-field of the manuscript.
  • Reviewer Database: INSS Press maintains a diverse, international database of reviewers and cross-reference potential reviewers against Scopus and Web of Science to ensure they are active researchers.

2. The Editorial Workflow and Performance Timelines

INSS Press is committed to a "Fast-but-Fair" editorial process. We balance the rapid dissemination of research with the strict requirements of methodological soundness and scientific integrity.

Phase 1: Technical Triage & Initial Screening (Target: 1–3 Days)

Every submission undergoes an immediate administrative review by the Editorial Team to ensure it is "review-ready":

  • Scope & Formatting: Verification that the research aligns with the journal’s aims and adheres to the Author Guidelines.
  • Originality Screening: A mandatory similarity check using iThenticate/Crossref Similarity Check. Manuscripts exceeding a 15% to 20% threshold (excluding references) are flagged for manual review.
  • Ethical Compliance: Verification of IRB/Ethics Committee approval numbers and CRediT authorship statements.
  • Initial Decision: Manuscripts that fail these checks are "Desk Rejected" or returned to authors for correction within 72 hours.

Phase 2: Independent Peer Review (Target: 4–6 Weeks)

Manuscripts passing Triage are assigned to a Handling Editor who initiates the external evaluation:

  • Reviewer Selection: A minimum of two independent, external experts are invited. We cross-reference potential reviewers against Scopus and Web of Science to ensure they are active researchers.
  • Conflict of Interest Mitigation: We strictly prohibit reviewers from the same institution as the authors or those with a co-authorship history within the last 3 years.
  • Assessment Criteria: Reviewers evaluate the work based on originality, methodological rigor, and data integrity.

Phase 3: Revision and Version Control

Authors are provided with a clear window to address reviewer feedback:

  • Minor Revisions: Authors are typically given 14–21 days.
  • Major Revisions: Authors are typically given 30–45 days.
  • Revision Screening: All revised manuscripts must include a Point-by-Point Response Letter. The Editorial Office verifies that every reviewer comment has been addressed before the paper proceeds to a final decision.

Phase 4: Final Editorial Decision & Feedback Guarantee

  • Adjudication: If initial reports are divergent (e.g., "Accept" vs. "Reject"), the Editor appoints a third "tie-breaker" reviewer to provide a final adjudication.
  • Transparency Guarantee: Regardless of the decision, INSS Press guarantees that authors receive the full, anonymized written reports and constructive feedback provided by the reviewers.
  • Final Authority: The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) holds the ultimate, binding authority. No manuscript is accepted without at least two positive recommendations from independent experts.

4. Ethical Obligations and Confidentiality

  • Reviewer Integrity: Reviewers must adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Any attempt by a reviewer to suggest "coerced citations" (demanding authors cite the reviewer's own work) is strictly prohibited and leads to removal from our database.
  • Confidentiality Firewall: Unpublished manuscripts are legal property of the authors until a transfer of copyright occurs. Reviewers may not use any part of the data or ideas prior to publication.
  • AI in Reviewing: Reviewers are prohibited from uploading manuscripts into Generative AI tools (like ChatGPT) to generate reviews, as this constitutes a breach of confidentiality and intellectual property.

5. Conflict of Interest (COI) Management

  • Reviewer Recusal: Reviewers must decline an invitation if they have a financial, personal, or professional COI.
  • Editorial COI: If a member of the Editorial Board is an author, the peer review is managed by an External Guest Editor who is not affiliated with the Board member's institution.

6. Recognition of Reviewers

We value the essential contribution of our reviewers.

  • Verification: We provide reviewers with formal certificates of contribution and support integration with Web of Science (formerly Publons) and ORCID to ensure they receive professional credit for their service.