Peer Review Policy
International Journal of Behavioral Social and Movement Sciences (IJOBSMS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic integrity, quality, and originality of all published research.
In this double-blind review system, both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the entire review process, ensuring impartiality and fairness. Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening for relevance, adherence to submission guidelines, formatting, and compliance with ethical standards.
Manuscripts that pass this initial screening are then assigned to at least two independent experts in the relevant field for critical evaluation. Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, academic background, and recent contributions to ensure a high-quality assessment.
Peer Review Process Overview:
- Authors submit manuscripts via the OJS online system.
- The editorial office performs initial checks, including plagiarism detection and format compliance.
- Manuscripts passing initial checks are assigned to an editor and sent to at least two independent reviewers for double-blind evaluation.
- Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, ethical compliance, clarity of results, and relevance of citations, submitting detailed reports with recommendations.
- The handling editor reviews the reports and issues one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revisions
- Minor revisions required
- Major revisions required
- Reject
- Authors are notified and asked to revise the manuscript if applicable.
- The revised manuscript is re-evaluated to ensure all concerns are addressed.
- The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision and communicates it to the authors.
The average review cycle typically takes 2–4 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. We strive to maintain timely communication throughout the process.
IJOBSMS strictly adheres to the ethical guidelines outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to guarantee fairness, transparency, and integrity in all editorial and peer-review activities.
Detailed Peer Review Guidelines and Ethical Standards
Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the quality of scholarly publishing. At IJOBSMS, we rely on our reviewers to help us identify manuscripts that contribute original, significant, and reliable knowledge to our readers—primarily academics, clinicians, and policy makers.
Each manuscript undergoes an initial triage by a Screening Editor who assesses originality, scientific merit, and plagiarism. Suitable manuscripts are then sent for double-blind peer review by at least two external experts. Both author and reviewer identities are concealed to avoid bias.
Reviewers have 1–2 weeks to accept or decline the review invitation and up to 2 weeks to submit their evaluations. Typically, the entire review process takes 3–4 weeks.
Manuscripts submitted must not be under consideration elsewhere and should not have been published previously. If rejected after peer review, authors are promptly informed by email.
Based on reviewer recommendations, editors may accept manuscripts as is, request revisions, or reject submissions. Revised manuscripts undergo further review before final acceptance.
Editors reserve the right to reject any manuscript deemed unsuitable due to content relevance, quality issues, or ethical concerns.
Type of Peer Review
IJOBSMS employs a double-blind peer review system, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process to ensure unbiased evaluation.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on expertise relevant to the manuscript topic and prior reviewing performance. Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission, though final selection is at the editors’ discretion.
Reviewer Responsibilities and Reports
Reviewers assess manuscripts for:
- Originality and contribution to the field
- Soundness and appropriateness of methodology
- Adherence to ethical research standards
- Clarity and validity of results and conclusions
- Accuracy and relevance of cited literature
Reviewers provide constructive, fair, and evidence-based feedback, avoiding any personal or derogatory comments.
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
Manuscripts and reviewer comments are strictly confidential. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review assignment. Discussions of the manuscript outside the review process are prohibited.
Publication of Peer Review History
For accepted articles, IJOBSMS may publish the prepublication history, including previous manuscript versions, reviewer comments, and author responses, promoting transparency.
Review Ownership and Use
Reviewers retain ownership of their reports but grant IJOBSMS the license to use them for editorial and publication purposes. Reviewers are responsible for obtaining consent from any co-reviewers involved.
Author Rights and Appeals
Authors should not contact reviewers directly but may raise concerns with the editorial office regarding peer review fairness. Manuscripts must be submitted to only one journal at a time and remain confidential until publication.
Manuscript Transfer Option
Authors may opt to have their manuscript and peer reviews transferred confidentially to other journals within THE UNIVERSITY ACADEMICS network if rejected by IJOBSMS, facilitating expedited consideration elsewhere.
Reviewer Recognition
Upon completion of a review, reviewers receive a formal thank-you email. Currently, no additional documentation is provided.
Become a Peer Reviewer
IJOBSMS welcomes qualified researchers and students to join our reviewer database. Interested candidates can register via our online editorial system, indicating their areas of expertise and interests. We encourage even students and newly graduated postgraduates to participate by including “student” as a keyword.
We continually strive to improve peer review quality through editorial research and training. Reviewers may be invited to participate in such initiatives, but can opt out by contacting the Editor-in-Chief.
Guidance on Writing Reviews
Review invitations will be sent by email. Please accept only if you have the relevant expertise and can meet the review deadline. If unable, you may suggest alternative reviewers.
Reviewers should provide unbiased, constructive, and detailed assessments, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses, with appropriate references where applicable.
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest prior to reviewing. Manuscripts must be treated confidentially, and no details should be shared outside the review process.
Reviewers should avoid personal comments, focusing on the scientific content and clarity. When applicable, reviewers may use provided checklists to ensure comprehensive evaluation.
Evaluation Criteria
- Is the manuscript important and relevant to readers?
- Does it provide new insights or valuable knowledge?
- Is the research question clearly defined and appropriately answered?
- Are methods, participants, and results clearly and adequately described?
- Are conclusions supported by the data?
- Are references accurate and up to date?
- Does the manuscript convey a clear and coherent message?
Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
Peer reviewers play a vital role in safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record. Reviewers must adhere to ethical standards including confidentiality, fairness, and disclosure of conflicts. Detailed ethical guidelines by COPE can be accessed and are highly recommended for all reviewers.
