Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

At the International Innovations Journal of Applied Science (IIJAS), the peer review process is designed to uphold scientific rigor, fairness, and transparency in accordance with the ethical frameworks of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics, and the MyCite Selection Criteria. The journal follows a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process to maintain impartiality and objectivity.

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Evaluation

All manuscripts submitted to IIJAS are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Manager to ensure compliance with the journal’s scope, author guidelines, and ethical standards.
Submissions that fail to meet formatting or policy requirements are returned to the corresponding author for correction within one week.
Each manuscript undergoes plagiarism screening using Turnitin, and only those with a similarity index below 20% proceed to peer review. Submissions exceeding this threshold are returned to authors for revision and resubmission.

2. Peer Review Assignment

Once a manuscript passes the initial evaluation, it is assigned to a Section Editor who assesses its scientific relevance and quality. The Section Editor recommends at least two qualified reviewers with expertise in the manuscript’s research field to the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief then formally invites the reviewers and provides a standardized review form to guide their evaluation. Reviewers must confirm acceptance of the invitation before accessing the manuscript.

3. Review Procedure and Evaluation

The double-blind peer review ensures anonymity between authors and reviewers.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty of the research

  • Methodological soundness and experimental design

  • Clarity and validity of data and analysis

  • Scientific contribution and relevance to applied sciences

  • Coherence, structure, and quality of presentation

Reviewers must submit their reports and recommendations within 2–3 weeks, choosing one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

If there is a substantial difference between reviewers’ recommendations, a third reviewer is invited to provide an independent assessment. The first review cycle is typically completed within 5–6 weeks, with a maximum duration of three months.

4. Revision and Resubmission

Authors are required to address all reviewer comments and submit both:

  • The revised manuscript, and

  • A point-by-point response letter explaining how each comment was addressed.

The revised submission must be received within two weeks unless an extension is requested in advance.
Failure to meet the deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript. Revised papers are re-evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, and if necessary, by the original reviewers to ensure all concerns have been properly resolved.

5. Final Editorial Decision

After all review reports and revisions are received, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision, which may be:

  • Accept for Publication

  • Accept with Minor Revisions

  • Major Revision Required

  • Reject

If both reviewers recommend rejection, the decision is considered final. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is based on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and compliance with ethical and editorial standards.

6. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, providing a detailed justification and a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
The appeal is reviewed by the editorial board and, if necessary, an independent reviewer.
All appeals are handled objectively in line with COPE’s ethical publishing guidelines.
A rejection decision is normally final unless compelling evidence supports reconsideration.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Compliance

All submissions, reviews, and editorial communications are strictly confidential.
Reviewers and editors must not disclose or use unpublished materials for personal research.
All participants in the review process are required to declare any conflicts of interest and maintain ethical integrity throughout the evaluation.

8. Archiving and Transparency

To maintain transparency and traceability, IIJAS securely stores peer review records within its editorial management system.
All manuscripts and review reports are preserved according to Sherpa Romeo and LOCKSS/CLOCKSS digital archiving standards to ensure long-term accessibility and accountability.

Summary

The peer review process at IIJAS is guided by internationally recognized standards to ensure that every accepted manuscript demonstrates scientific originality, methodological rigor, and applied relevance.
The journal’s procedures are fully aligned with COPE, Elsevier, and MyCite frameworks, ensuring global credibility and compliance with Scopus and Clarivate indexing requirements.