The Universal Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovative Development (UJMRID) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of editorial quality, professionalism, and ethical conduct. As part of our commitment to academic integrity and transparency, this editorial policy outlines the processes, roles, and ethical guidelines that govern the submission, review, and publication of research. The objective is to ensure that the journal remains a credible, fair, and impartial platform for innovative research across multiple disciplines.
1. Overview
At UJMRID, we strive to publish high-quality, peer-reviewed research articles that advance knowledge and foster innovation. Our editorial team follows a robust, transparent, and impartial peer review process to maintain the scientific rigor and integrity of the content we publish. This policy is designed to set clear expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors, ensuring that every manuscript undergoes a fair evaluation that is consistent with the principles of academic ethics.
2. Types of Peer Review
UJMRID uses a double-blind peer review process for all manuscript submissions. In this process:
- Authors’ identities are concealed from the reviewers to avoid bias.
- Reviewers’ identities are concealed from the authors, ensuring impartiality and fairness.
This method ensures that the review process remains objective, focused on the content of the manuscript rather than the reputation or identity of the author or reviewer.
3. Initial Manuscript Evaluation
Upon receiving a manuscript, the editorial team performs an initial evaluation to determine:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope and objectives.
- Adherence to submission guidelines and formatting requirements.
- Quality and clarity of the manuscript.
- Ethical compliance, including plagiarism checks.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be rejected at this stage without further review.
4. Selection of Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. The editorial board ensures:
- Qualified reviewers with the necessary academic or professional credentials.
- Conflict-free reviewers who have no personal or professional ties to the authors or their work.
- A diverse pool of reviewers to offer a range of perspectives on the manuscript.
5. Peer Review Process
Step 1: Reviewer Invitation
- Two independent reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript.
- Reviewers receive the manuscript, the journal’s review guidelines, and a timeline (typically 2-3 weeks) to provide their feedback.
Step 2: Reviewers’ Evaluation
Reviewers assess the manuscript based on several criteria:
- Originality: Is the research novel and innovative?
- Significance: Does the paper meaningfully contribute to the field?
- Methodology: Is the methodology appropriate and well-explained?
- Clarity: Are the arguments and conclusions clearly presented and supported by evidence?
- Relevance: Does the paper align with the journal’s scope?
- Ethical Considerations: Are ethical standards, such as informed consent and data integrity, maintained?
- Language and Structure: Is the manuscript well-written and structured to meet academic standards?
Step 3: Reviewers’ Feedback
Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide recommendations:
- Accept: Manuscript meets all necessary criteria for publication.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes or clarifications.
- Major Revisions: The manuscript needs significant revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the required standards.
Step 4: Editorial Decision
The editorial board makes the final decision based on reviewers’ feedback:
- Accepted: If both reviewers recommend acceptance, or if minor revisions are successfully addressed.
- Revisions Required: If major revisions are suggested, the manuscript will undergo further review.
- Rejected: If the manuscript does not meet the required standards after revisions, it will be rejected.
6. Ethical Guidelines
UJMRID adheres to strict ethical standards in the research and publication process. The following guidelines must be followed by authors, reviewers, and editors:
- For Authors:
- Originality: All work submitted must be original, with proper citations for any external sources.
- Plagiarism: Manuscripts are checked for plagiarism, and any instances will lead to rejection.
- Conflict of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest.
- Ethical Approval: Research involving human or animal subjects must obtain ethical approval, which should be clearly stated in the manuscript.
- For Reviewers:
- Objectivity: Reviewers must assess the manuscript impartially, based on scientific merit.
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from reviewing if necessary.
- Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete the review process within the designated time frame.
- For Editors:
- Fairness: Editors must ensure a fair and unbiased review process, treating all manuscripts impartially.
- Transparency: Editors must communicate editorial decisions clearly and transparently to authors.
- Confidentiality: Editors are required to maintain confidentiality and avoid conflicts of interest during the editorial process.
7. Confidentiality
All manuscript submissions and peer review processes are confidential. Manuscripts should not be shared with anyone outside of the review process unless specific expertise is needed. This confidentiality extends to all participants in the review process—authors, reviewers, and editors.
8. Conflicts of Interest
To preserve the integrity of the peer review process:
- Authors must disclose any relationships that may influence the content of their work.
- Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.
- Editors must recuse themselves from reviewing or making decisions on manuscripts with which they have a conflict of interest.
9. Appeal Process
Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may appeal in writing to the editorial board. The appeal will be reviewed, and, if necessary, a new round of peer review will be conducted. The editorial board’s decision on the appeal is final.
10. Timeliness of Reviews
The journal is committed to ensuring a timely review process. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within 2-3 weeks. In case of delays or reviewer unavailability, the editorial team will identify alternative reviewers to maintain the review timeline.
11. Transparency in Decision-Making
UJMRID strives for full transparency in its editorial and peer review decisions. Authors will receive detailed feedback from reviewers, unless anonymity is requested by the reviewer. The editorial decision will clearly explain the rationale based on the reviewers’ recommendations.
12. Post-Publication Review
In the event of post-publication issues such as errors or controversies, the journal will:
- Promptly correct any identified errors.
- Encourage open communication between authors, reviewers, and editors to address any concerns.
13. Conclusion
The editorial policy of UJMRID is designed to ensure that all published research maintains the highest standards of quality, integrity, and ethical conduct. Our commitment to impartiality, transparency, and thoroughness in the peer review process ensures that we continue to serve as a trusted platform for innovative, impactful research across multiple disciplines. By adhering to this policy, we uphold the academic integrity and credibility of the journal and contribute to the ongoing advancement of scholarly knowledge.
