Innovation and

ISSN(Online) 2524-8502

INED Review Policy

Home Policy INED Review Policy

Guideline for Reviewers

This guide for reviewers contains information regarding basic considerations that should be applied when reviewing a manuscript. Submitted manuscripts will be sent to peer reviewers, unless they are poorly written, out of scope or below the interest threshold of the journal.

We would like to invite you, as an expert, to review a recommended manuscript. This invitation reflects our view that you are an expert in your field; we hope you will consider it an academic honour. We appreciate your professional assistance in conducting a peer review of the manuscripts (a double-blind peer review). Please read the paper carefully and send us your comments in accordance with the guidelines below. Reviewers will be asked to choose whether an appropriate course of action for the manuscript is “accept”, “minor revision”, “major revision” or “reject”. Reviewers also will be asked whether the writing is comprehensible, and how interesting they consider the article to be. Reviewers should also alert the editors of any issues relating to any author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior.

Review Process

  • 1)
    Section Editor
    The Section Editor checks whether a manuscript submitted online fulfills the submission guidelines; if it does, appoints two reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field, making a total of three reviewers.
  • 2)
    The reviewers choose an appropriate course of action from the following list of options: Accept, Minor revisions, Major revisions, Reject with a recommendation of resubmission, or Reject. Decisions must reflect the "submission guidelines" and "guidelines for reviewers."
  • 3)
    Section Editor
    The Section Editor will make a recommendation on the manuscript by collecting the reviewers' recommendations and forward them to the Editor-in-Chief. If one or more reviewers have recommended that the submission be rejected, an additional reviewer can be appointed, or the submission can be rejected.
  • 4)
    The Editor-in-Chief oversees all review processes, review results and makes the final decision on a manuscript based on the recommendation of the Section Editor.

All manuscripts from editors, or members of the editorial board are processed the same as other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters will not engage in the decision process. Editors will not handle their own manuscripts.

Review Guideline

The key role of a reviewer is to help the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor to decide whether to publish a manuscript by commenting on its academic value. Thus, reviewers must read the paper thoroughly and give clear comments. The reviewer should avoid questioning answers that are already present in the manuscript, or criticizing insignificant content. If the manuscript presents a new concept or topic but needs major revisions, the reviewer should give detailed comments to assist publication. When rejecting a submission, the reviewer should treat authors with courtesy. The following are considered when deciding whether to accept a submission or to recommend revisions:

  • 1.
    Title: Length and the substance of the title are both adequate.
  • 2.
    Abstract: Abstract is structured of 250 words or less and states the purpose of the study, methods, results, and conclusion.
  • 3.
    Introduction: Research background, purpose, and significance are well-stated, specific, and substantial.
  • 4.
    Methods: Research design including sample/participant selection, data collection and data analysis is described in sufficient detail and is appropriate and valid.
  • 5.
    Findings: The research purpose and results are coherent and results are clearly stated and presented in logical sequence.
  • 6.
    Discussion: The new and important aspects of the study are emphasized; the possible explanation of the findings are well explored. The results are well compared or contrasted with other relevant studies. Implication of the study is well-presented.
  • 7.
    Conclusion: Conclusion is clearly stated and adequately supported by the data, and can be deduced from the research results. The research limitations are noted.
  • 8.
    References and citations: In-text citations and references should follow APA Style (7th edition).
  • 9.
    Tables and figures: Visual material such as tables and figures must be used to supplement communication rather than to misrepresent the results. Refer in the text to all tables and figures used, focusing only on the important points of the table or figure.
  • 10.
    Ethics: The authors noted the permission from the Ethical Committee or IRB, Ethics in the manuscript (only for original articles)
  • 11.
    Overall evaluation: (1) Topic of the study: The topic of the manuscript is appropriate for the audience of the journal. (2) Is the length of the manuscript appropriate? Is there unnecessary repetition?

Reviewer Responsibility

  • Basic principles: If the reviewer believes that he or she is not the appropriate person to review a particular article, he or she must immediately notify the Section Editor. Reviewers should approach the task of reviewing with sincerity, and submit their reviews in a timely manner.
  • Fairness: A reviewer should treat all authors fairly. If there is any conflict of interest, immediately notify the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief.
  • Confidentiality: Except when asking for advice in relation to a review, the manuscript and its content should not be disclosed to a third party. The manuscript cannot be cited before publication. The review process is double blind, which means that a reviewer cannot contact the author. If a reviewer believes that contact with the author is necessary, then he or she should notify the Section Editor.

Current Issue

July, 2022

Current Issue

Innovation and

ISSN(Online) 2524-8502