INSS Press INSS Press

Peer Review Policy

1. Review Models

INSS journals use double-blind peer review unless otherwise stated on the journal’s page. At least two expert reviewers typically evaluate each manuscript.

  • Double-Blind Review
  • Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.
  • Reduces bias based on author identity, affiliation, or reputation.
  • Preferred in fields where impartiality is especially critical.

2. Process

All submissions are first screened by the editorial office and handling editor for scope, quality, and ethical compliance. Suitable manuscripts are sent to at least two independent experts for peer review (depending on the journal). Authors may be asked to revise their work in response to reviewer comments before a final editorial decision is made. Accepted papers then proceed to copyediting and publication.

Initial Screening

  • Each submission is first reviewed by the editorial office for completeness, formatting, and compliance with the journal’s scope and ethical standards.
  • Manuscripts may be desk-rejected at this stage if they fall outside the journal’s scope, contain major ethical issues, or lack sufficient quality.

Reviewer Selection

  • At least two independent experts are invited to review each manuscript.
  • Reviewers are selected based on expertise, impartiality, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Editorial Decision

  • Based on reviewer reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • In cases of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be consulted.

Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors are expected to address reviewer comments thoroughly.
  • A detailed response letter must accompany revised submissions.
  • Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed depending on the extent of revisions required.

Final Decision and Publication

  • The Editor-in-Chief (or designated senior editor) makes the final decision.
  • Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and publication.
  • Review history may be published alongside the article in journals adopting open peer review.

3. Timelines

We aim to provide authors with a fair, efficient, and timely review process. While exact timelines may vary by journal and discipline, our standard targets are:

  • Initial Editorial Screening: 1–3 working days
  • Assignment to Reviewers: Within 1 week of passing initial screening
  • Review Period: 2–3 weeks per reviewer
  • First Decision (Accept/Revise/Reject): Usually within 3–4 weeks of submission
  • Revision by Authors: 2–3 weeks for minor revisions; up to 6 weeks for major revisions
  • Final Decision after Revision: 1–2 weeks after resubmission
  • Copyediting, Proofs, and Online Publication: 1–2 weeks post-acceptance

Overall expected time from submission to publication: 3–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, revision speed, and editorial complexity.

4. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts Under Review: All manuscripts submitted are treated as strictly confidential. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone outside the review and publication process.
  • Reviewers’ Responsibilities: Reviewers must not share, copy, or use unpublished material for personal advantage or research purposes. Manuscripts may not be discussed with colleagues without prior permission from the editor.
  • Editors’ Responsibilities: Editors ensure that submitted materials remain confidential during the review process. They must not use any unpublished data or ideas for their own research.
  • Author and Reviewer Identities (for double-blind models): Identities of authors and reviewers are protected unless the journal operates an open peer review model, in which case disclosure is done with consent.
  • Post-Publication: Confidentiality extends beyond publication. Any personal communications, reviewer reports, or editorial notes are not publicly shared unless both parties agree.

5. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers must decline invitations if financial, institutional, or personal relationships could affect their impartiality. Editors also avoid assigning reviewers with conflicts. All procedures follow COPE peer review guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers) to ensure fairness and transparency.

6. Review Quality

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, and timely feedback that improves the manuscript’s quality. Comments should be specific, evidence-based, and respectful, with recommendations supported by clear reasoning.