1. Overview

The Universal Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovative Development (UJMRID) is committed to publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed research articles that advance knowledge and contribute to the academic community across various disciplines. The journal follows a rigorous and impartial peer-review process to ensure that only scientifically valid, original, and high-impact research is published. This policy outlines the steps, expectations, and ethical guidelines governing the peer-review process.

2. Types of Peer Review

The UJMRID follows a double-blind peer review process for all submissions. In this system:

• Authors’ identities are concealed from the reviewers.
• Reviewers’ identities are concealed from the authors.

This ensures that the decision-making process remains objective, impartial, and free from biases based on authorship or reputation.

3. Initial Manuscript Evaluation

Upon submission, the editorial team performs an initial evaluation of the manuscript to ensure:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Adherence to the submission guidelines.
• Quality and clarity of the manuscript.
• Ethical compliance (e.g., plagiarism check).

Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be rejected without further peer review.

4. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript. The editorial board ensures that:

• Reviewers have relevant academic or professional qualifications.
• Reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the authors or research.
• A diverse pool of reviewers is selected to ensure different perspectives on the manuscript.

Reviewer Eligibility Criteria:

• Must hold a doctoral degree or equivalent qualification in the subject of the submission.
• Must have a proven track record of publications in the field.
• Preferably have experience as a reviewer in academic journals.

5. Peer Review Process

Step 1: Reviewer Invitation

The editorial board invites at least two independent reviewers to assess the manuscript. Reviewers are provided with the following:

• A copy of the manuscript.
• The journal’s review guidelines.
• A timeline for providing feedback (typically within 2-3 weeks).

Step 2: Reviewers’ Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Originality: Is the research original and innovative?
• Significance: Does the research contribute meaningfully to the field?
• Methodology: Is the methodology appropriate, rigorous, and well-explained?
• Clarity: Are the arguments and conclusions clearly stated and supported by evidence?
• Relevance: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s scope and objectives?
• Ethical Considerations: Are ethical guidelines followed (e.g., informed consent, data integrity, plagiarism check)?
• Language and Structure: Is the manuscript well-written and structured in accordance with academic standards?

Step 3: Reviewers’ Feedback

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all the necessary criteria for publication without major revisions.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes and clarifications.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the required standards for publication.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and detailed comments, offering guidance on how the manuscript can be improved.

Step 4: Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editorial board makes a final decision:

• Accepted: If both reviewers recommend acceptance or if minor revisions are required and successfully addressed by the author.
• Revisions Required: If major revisions are suggested, the author will be asked to revise the manuscript and resubmit it for further review.
• Rejected: If the manuscript does not meet the necessary criteria after revision or if reviewers recommend rejection.

6. Ethical Guidelines

The UJMRID adheres to the highest ethical standards in research and publishing. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to comply with the following:

For Authors:

• The work must be original, and proper citation of sources must be provided.
• Authors must avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Manuscripts are subject to plagiarism detection software.
• Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., financial or personal).
• Any ethical approval for research involving human subjects or animals must be stated clearly.

For Reviewers:

• Reviewers must conduct the review process objectively, without bias.
• Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest and decline to review manuscripts where a conflict exists.
• Reviewers should maintain confidentiality and not use the knowledge gained through the review process for personal gain.
• Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to authors for improving the quality of their manuscripts.

For Editors:

• Editors must handle manuscripts fairly and impartially, ensuring a transparent review process.
• Editors should uphold confidentiality and avoid any conflicts of interest.
• Editors must act promptly to avoid unnecessary delays in the review and publication process.

7. Confidentiality

All materials submitted for publication are confidential. Authors, reviewers, and editors must not disclose any information related to the manuscript during the review process. Manuscripts should not be shared or discussed with individuals outside of the peer review process, unless required for specific expertise.

8. Conflicts of Interest

To maintain the integrity of the review process, the following guidelines are adhered to:

• Authors: Authors must declare any financial or personal relationships that could potentially influence the content of their work.
• Reviewers: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality in reviewing a manuscript.
• Editors: Editors must recuse themselves from the decision-making process if they have a conflict of interest with any manuscript.

9. Appeal Process

If an author disagrees with the editorial decision (accept, reject, or revise), they may submit an 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 decision of the editorial board regarding the appeal is final.

10. Timeliness of Reviews

The UJMRID is committed to ensuring a timely review process. We expect reviewers to complete their evaluations within 2-3 weeks from receiving the manuscript. In case of delays or unavailability, the editorial board will work to identify alternative reviewers.

11. Transparency in Decision-Making

The journal is committed to transparency in its editorial and peer review decisions. Authors will be provided with reviewers’ comments and recommendations after a decision is made, unless the reviewer requests anonymity. The editorial decision will include a clear explanation based on the reviewers’ feedback.

12. Post-Publication Review

In the case of post-publication errors or controversies, UJMRID ensures the following:

• Any errors or discrepancies identified post-publication will be promptly corrected.
• Authors and reviewers are encouraged to communicate openly if there are concerns about the published content.

13. Conclusion

The peer review process is fundamental to maintaining the academic integrity and quality of publications in the Universal Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovative Development (UJMRID). The journal adheres to the highest standards of professionalism, objectivity, and transparency to ensure the publication of high-impact research.