Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy for Impact Compass Journals

 Purpose

The peer review process at Impact Compass Journals is designed to ensure the publication of high-quality original research by providing rigorous, fair, and constructive evaluation of the submitted manuscripts. This policy outlines the principles, procedures, and ethical standards guiding the review process.

1. Type of Peer Review

• Impact Compass Journals operates a single-anonymous (single-blind) peer review process: reviewers know the identity of the authors, but they do not know the identity of the reviewers.
• All submissions are subject to peer review, except invited articles, editorials, and letters, which may be reviewed at the editor-in-chief’s discretion.

2. Initial Screening

• Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an internal quality control check by the editorial office to ensure compliance with journal policies, completeness of submission, and adherence to ethical standards (e.g. conflicts of interest, authorship, and financial disclosures).
• Manuscripts failing to meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction prior to review.

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

• Manuscripts that passed the initial screening were assigned to at least two to four independent expert reviewers with relevant scientific expertise.
• Reviewers were selected based on their knowledge of the subject area of the manuscript to ensure a competent and thorough evaluation.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Impartiality and Confidentiality: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest (financial, professional, or personal), and recuse themselves if such conflicts exist.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts and associated data must be treated as privileged information and not shared or used for personal advantage.
• Constructive Feedback: Reviews should provide clear, respectful, and actionable feedback, highlight both strengths and areas for improvement, and offer specific recommendations.
• Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within an agreed timeframe. Delays must be communicated promptly to the editorial office.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers were asked to assess manuscripts based on the following:

• Originality and significance of the research
• Methodological rigor and validity of data
• Clarity and coherence of presentation
• Appropriateness of conclusions drawn from the data
• Ethical standards and transparency

6. Editorial Decision Process

• The Editor-in-Chief, informed by the reviewer’s reports, will decide to:
• Accept the manuscript
• Request minor or major revisions
• Reject the manuscript
• The authors have provided anonymous reviewer comments and editorial recommendations.
• Revised manuscripts and author rebuttals were typically returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. No more than three rounds of revision were permitted.
• In cases of conflicting reviews, the editor-in-chief may seek additional opinions or arbitrate the final decision.

7. Appeals

• The authors may appeal editorial decisions in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, providing a detailed justification. Appeals will be considered by the editorial board and, if necessary, by additional reviewers.

8. Ethical Standards

• Impact Compass Journals adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines.
• All parties involved in the peer-review process are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and respect.

9. Post-Publication

• If concerns arise after publication, the journal will investigate according to the COPE guidelines and may issue corrections, retractions, or other appropriate actions as necessary.

10. Communication

• All editorial correspondence regarding decisions, revisions, and appeals will be conducted via the journal’s submission system to ensure transparency and record keeping.

This policy is reviewed regularly to reflect best practices and evolving standards in scholarly publishing.