The iRASD Journal of Energy & Environment (iRASD-JEE), published by the International Research Alliance for Sustainable Development (iRASD), follows a rigorous, independent, confidential, and transparent peer-review process to ensure the scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, and research integrity of published articles.
The journal operates a double-blind peer-review system, managed through Open Journal Systems (OJS), in accordance with its established editorial policies and recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing.
1. Editorial Screening and Eligibility for Peer Review
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability for external peer review. This preliminary assessment considers the journal's aims and scope, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological adequacy, and compliance with submission and ethical requirements.
Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements may be returned for corrections or rejected without external peer review.
Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial assessment proceed to independent external peer review.
Detailed procedures for manuscript submission, editorial screening, revision, and publication are provided in the journal's Publication Process.
2. Peer-Review Model and Number of Reviewers
iRASD-JEE follows a double-blind peer-review system in which authors' identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors.
Each manuscript proceeding to external peer review is normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers who possess relevant subject expertise and are not members of the journal's editorial office.
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, scientific contribution, methodological rigor, analytical validity, interpretation of findings, relevance to the journal's scope, and overall scholarly quality.
Review reports are anonymous and confidential. They are not ordinarily published alongside accepted articles. Editorial comments, reviewer identities, and author responses are not routinely disclosed publicly as part of the published article.
3. Reviewer Selection and Appointment
Reviewer selection and appointment are conducted independently by the Editor-in-Chief, handling editor, or another authorized member of the editorial team.
Reviewers are selected according to their academic qualifications, disciplinary expertise, research experience, independence, and suitability for evaluating the submitted manuscript.
iRASD-JEE does not accept author-recommended reviewers. Authors cannot nominate, select, or appoint reviewers for their submissions.
The editorial team retains full responsibility for reviewer selection and invitation. Automated reviewer suggestions, where used, are subject to editorial verification; automated systems do not independently appoint or invite reviewers without editorial approval.
Reviewers and editors are required to disclose relevant competing interests. Where a conflict could compromise impartiality, the individual concerned must not participate in the affected review or editorial decision. Detailed requirements are provided in the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.
4. Expected Peer-Review Turnaround
iRASD-JEE is committed to conducting peer review efficiently without compromising scientific quality, fairness, independence, or research integrity.
The journal's standard reviewer deadlines are:
| Review Stage | Expected Period |
|---|---|
| Reviewer invitation response | Two weeks (14 calendar days) |
| Initial review completion | Four weeks (28 calendar days) |
Reviewer invitation response: Invited reviewers are normally allowed two weeks to accept or decline a review invitation.
Review completion: Reviewers are normally allocated four weeks to complete their initial manuscript evaluation and submit their reports.
These are standard reviewer-assignment deadlines. The actual response and review due dates are specified in OJS and may be adjusted by an authorized editor where justified.
Reviewers who anticipate difficulty meeting an assigned deadline are expected to notify the handling editor promptly. The editorial team may issue reminders, approve reasonable extensions, or appoint alternative qualified reviewers where necessary.
These deadlines refer to reviewer assignments and do not represent guaranteed periods for initial editorial decisions, final acceptance, or online publication.
The overall duration of manuscript evaluation may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, additional review rounds, author revisions, and editorial requirements.
Where significant delays occur, authors will be informed of the circumstances and may contact the editorial office regarding manuscript status or request withdrawal in accordance with the journal's applicable procedures.
5. Confidentiality and Conduct of Peer Review
All manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports, and editorial communications are confidential during the review process.
Reviewers must not disclose unpublished manuscript content, share confidential materials with unauthorized individuals, or contact authors directly regarding manuscripts under evaluation.
A reviewer wishing to involve another person in an assessment must obtain prior editorial authorization. Any authorized contributor is subject to the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.
Reviewers must conduct their assessments independently, objectively, and constructively, following the journal's Guidelines for Reviewers.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished research materials to unauthorized third-party generative AI systems.
Generative AI must not replace independent scholarly judgment or be used to produce substantive review evaluations without appropriate editorial authorization. Any permitted AI assistance must comply with confidentiality requirements and be disclosed to the handling editor.
Detailed requirements concerning artificial intelligence are governed by the journal's applicable Generative AI Policy.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary materials relevant to assessing a manuscript's methods, findings, or reproducibility are made available to reviewers where appropriate.
Reviewers may evaluate these materials and request additional information through the handling editor when necessary. The editorial team determines whether further assessment of supplementary materials is required.
6. Editorial Decisions and Re-evaluation
Following external peer review, the handling editor considers the reviewers' reports and the manuscript's scholarly merits.
Possible editorial outcomes include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine the outcome.
Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially or additional expertise is required, the editor may request clarification or obtain an additional independent review.
Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor or returned for further external review where appropriate.
The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor is responsible for the final editorial decision. Decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, relevance, and research integrity, independently of financial considerations.
Detailed manuscript revision, acceptance, and production procedures are explained in the journal's Publication Process.
7. Exceptional Peer-Review Arrangements
The journal's established external peer-review procedures apply to original research articles, review articles, case studies, and technical notes submitted for scholarly publication.
Editorial content, announcements, or other non-research material may follow different editorial assessment procedures where applicable. Such content must be clearly identified by article type.
Any departure from the journal's normal peer-review procedure must be appropriately documented and disclosed in the published article, including the nature of the assessment undertaken.
Invited manuscripts, special-issue submissions, or contributions involving editorial board members are not automatically exempt from independent peer-review requirements.
Editors responsible for handling manuscripts must follow the journal's established reviewer-selection, confidentiality, and conflict-of-interest procedures.
8. Complaints, Integrity, and Related Policies
Concerns regarding peer-review integrity, reviewer conduct, inappropriate editorial influence, or manuscript handling may be reported to the editorial office.
Complaints, appeals, and suspected misconduct are handled under the journal's established Complaint and Misconduct Policy and Publication Ethics Policy.
The following policies provide additional information:
iRASD-JEE is committed to maintaining a peer-review system consistent with recognized international principles of transparency, editorial independence, and responsible scholarly publishing.
