Peer Review Process
IJMIE is committed to rigorous, fair, and timely peer review. All research content published in the journal is subject to double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent expert reviewers. This policy is a core requirement for indexing in Scopus, the Web of Science, and DOAJ, and is applied consistently to every submission.
Review Model
The journal operates a double-anonymous review model: the identities of authors and reviewers are withheld from one another throughout the process. Authors are therefore required to submit a fully anonymized manuscript in addition to a separate title page (see Author Guidelines).
Peer Review Workflow
- Submission & technical check — the editorial office confirms the manuscript is within scope, complete, correctly formatted, and screened for similarity/plagiarism.
- Editorial assessment — the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor assesses novelty, rigour and fit. Out-of-scope or clearly deficient manuscripts may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).
- Reviewer assignment — a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant expertise are invited.
- Review — reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, validity of results, clarity, and ethics, and submit confidential recommendations.
- Decision — the handling editor synthesizes the reviews and issues a decision.
- Revision — authors respond point-by-point; revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers.
- Final decision & production — accepted articles proceed to copy-editing, proofing, DOI assignment and open-access publication.
Indicative Timelines
The following are target timelines; actual times vary with reviewer availability and revision complexity.
| Stage | Target time |
|---|---|
| Initial (desk) decision | 5–10 days |
| First decision after review | 4–8 weeks |
| Revision to final decision | 2–4 weeks |
| Acceptance to online publication | 2–4 weeks |
Reviewer Selection & Responsibilities
- Reviewers are selected for subject expertise and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or the work.
- Reviews must be objective, constructive, confidential, and completed within the agreed timeframe.
- Reviewers must declare any competing interests and decline if they cannot review impartially.
- Reviewers must not use or disclose unpublished material from a submitted manuscript.
- Reviewers should alert editors to any ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or redundant publication.
Editorial Decisions
- Accept — publishable as submitted or with minor editorial changes.
- Minor revision — publishable after limited changes.
- Major revision — potentially publishable after substantial revision and further review.
- Reject — not suitable for publication in IJMIE.
Appeals & Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by writing to the editorial office with a detailed, evidence-based rebuttal. Appeals are considered by an editor not previously involved in the decision, and the outcome of an appeal is final. Complaints about the review process are handled in accordance with COPE guidance; see also our Editorial Policies.
Reviewer Recognition
The contribution of reviewers is gratefully acknowledged. Reviewers may, on request, receive formal acknowledgement of their service, and the journal supports linking of verified review activity to reviewer ORCID records.
