Peer Review Policy

The editorial policy of this journal is designed according to the aspects, advice, and recommendations of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). Submission of a manuscript to the Journal of Current Research and Studies implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies.

Normally review process takes one to two weeks. For the peer-review process usually two or more, independent reviewers were selected by the editors. The Reviewers treat the review process as being strictly confidential. Immediately after getting reviewer comments/suggestions, manuscripts are sent to authors for improvement of their article. Reviewers are invited by the editor-in-chief or editors through requests made via email. Reviewers come from national or international territories. Reviewers are assigned to review articles in their own particular field of expertise. The editors make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice.

Double-blind review

  • In the double-blind review process, both the reviewer and the author are anonymous means their identity is hidden from each other.
  • As the author’s identity is hidden it prevents biasing of any reviewer based on country, work, etc. (Title will not be sent to the reviewer during the whole review process)

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following aspects of each manuscript:

  • Originality: Is the work innovative and does it add to the existing body of knowledge?
  • Quality of Research: Are the research design, methodology, and analysis sound and appropriate?
  • Clarity: Is the paper well-written, clear, and logically structured?
  • Relevance: Does the manuscript address important questions in its field?
  • Ethical Standards: Does the manuscript comply with ethical guidelines (e.g., for studies involving human or animal subjects)?

Peer Review Timeline

The peer review process typically takes 1–2 weeks. However, the timeline may vary depending on the complexity of the research and the availability of reviewers.

  • Initial Review: Manuscripts are first reviewed by the editorial team to ensure they meet the journal’s submission guidelines and ethical standards.
  • Reviewer Assignment: Qualified reviewers are then assigned to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Reviewer Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed reports and recommend one of the following actions:
    • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without revision.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes before being accepted.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript needs significant modifications before further consideration.
    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Revision Process

If revisions are required, the authors will be given a specified amount of time to address the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, or it may undergo a final assessment by the editorial board.

  • Minor Revisions: Authors typically have 1–2 weeks to submit a revised version.
  • Major Revisions: Authors are generally given 4–6 weeks for major revisions.

Final Decision

The final decision on whether a manuscript will be accepted for publication lies with the journal’s editorial board, based on the reviewers' recommendations and the authors' revisions. The decision categories include:

  • Accept as is
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Request further major revisions
  • Reject

Ethical Standards in Peer Review

The journal adheres to the highest standards of ethics during the peer review process:

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as confidential and refrain from sharing it with others.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.
  • Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively, with no personal bias.

Appeals and Disputes

Authors have the right to appeal decisions made during the peer review process. Appeals must be based on procedural errors or overlooked significant aspects of the manuscript. Appeals will be considered by the editorial board, and a final decision will be communicated to the author.