For authors
Peer Review Policy
The double anonymous review model used by the journal, the criteria reviewers apply, decision categories, timelines and the appeals process.
The model
International Research Insights operates double anonymous peer review. Reviewers are not told who wrote the manuscript, and authors are not told who reviewed it. This model is used because it is the one that best protects unknown authors from being judged by their affiliation, which is precisely the problem this journal was founded to address.
Every manuscript that passes editorial screening is sent to at least two reviewers. Where the two reports disagree on the decision, a third reviewer is appointed and the Editor in Chief decides on the full set of reports.
Stage one: editorial screening
Within seven working days of receipt, the Managing Editor checks the manuscript for:
- fit with the journal’s scope and with a named research section;
- compliance with the submission guidelines, including anonymisation and referencing;
- similarity, using the threshold set in the plagiarism policy;
- basic scholarly viability, meaning a stated question, a method the reader can follow and evidence that supports the claims made.
Manuscripts that fail screening are returned with written reasons. Screening is not a judgement on the value of the research, and a returned manuscript may be resubmitted once the identified problems are fixed.
Stage two: reviewer assignment
Reviewers are selected for expertise in the manuscript’s subject, and are asked to decline if any of the following applies:
- they work in the same department as any author, or have done within the past three years;
- they have co authored with any author within the past three years;
- they have supervised or been supervised by any author;
- they have any financial, personal or professional interest in the outcome;
- they cannot return the report within three weeks.
Reviewers who cannot accept are asked to suggest an alternative referee. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers with all identifying material removed, including file metadata.
Stage three: the review criteria
Reviewers assess each manuscript against seven published criteria and score each from one to five.
| Criterion | What the reviewer is asked |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does the manuscript say something not already established in the literature it cites? |
| Question | Is the research question stated clearly and answered by the end? |
| Method | Is the method appropriate, described well enough to be repeated, and applied consistently? |
| Evidence | Do the data, sources, cases or texts support the claims made, and are limitations acknowledged? |
| Argument | Does the analysis follow from the evidence rather than restating the introduction? |
| Scholarship | Is the relevant literature engaged with, and is the referencing accurate and complete? |
| Communication | Is the writing clear enough that a reader in an adjacent field can follow it? |
Reviewers also give written comments in two parts: comments to the author, which are always forwarded, and confidential comments to the editor, which are not. Reviewers are asked to write the comments to the author as they would wish to receive them, which is the only instruction of its kind the journal issues twice.
Decision categories
- Accept. Publishable as submitted, subject to copy editing.
- Accept with minor revision. Publishable once specified corrections are made. Normally not returned to reviewers.
- Revise and resubmit. The work has merit but requires substantial change. The revised manuscript returns to the original reviewers wherever possible.
- Reject. The manuscript is not publishable in this journal in this form. Reviewer reports are still sent to the author.
A decision is communicated in writing by the Managing Editor and carries the reviewer reports in every case, including rejection. The journal does not issue decisions without reasons.
Timelines
| Stage | Target |
|---|---|
| Acknowledgement of receipt | 2 working days |
| Editorial screening outcome | 7 working days |
| Reviewer reports | 3 weeks, extendable once by 1 week |
| First decision to author | 5 weeks from submission |
| Author revision, minor | 3 weeks |
| Author revision, substantial | 6 weeks |
| Final decision after revision | 2 weeks |
| Publication after acceptance | Next scheduled issue |
Where a target is missed, the editorial office informs the author of the reason and the revised date without being prompted.
Reviewer conduct
Reviewers must treat the manuscript as confidential, must not circulate it, must not use its findings before publication, and must not contact the author. A reviewer who suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission or undisclosed conflict must inform the editor rather than raise it with the author. Reviewers may not ask authors to cite the reviewer’s own work unless the citation is clearly necessary to the argument.
Recognition
Reviewers receive a signed certificate of service for each completed review and are listed, with their consent, in an annual acknowledgement published in the December issue. Reviewer names are never linked to specific manuscripts.
Appeals
An author who believes a decision rests on a factual error or on a review that misread the manuscript may appeal once. Write to the Editor in Chief within thirty days of the decision, quoting the manuscript number, and set out the specific points at issue with evidence. Appeals are decided by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, normally within four weeks. Dissatisfaction with a decision is not itself grounds for appeal, and the outcome of an appeal is final.
Submissions from editors and board members
A manuscript submitted by any member of the editorial board, including the Editor in Chief, is handled by another editor, is anonymised in the usual way, and is reviewed by referees with no institutional connection to the author. The member takes no part in any decision on their own work and has no access to the file. Any article by a board member carries a note recording that this procedure was followed.