Peer Review Process

The Review Model

IJCRT operates transparent, double-blind peer review. While a paper is reviewed, author identities are withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors; once it is published, the review is recorded so anyone can check that it took place. Every research submission is reviewed before any decision to publish.

Who sees what, and when

The purpose of blinding is narrow but important: it removes the reviewer's knowledge of who wrote the paper, so the assessment rests on the work rather than on the authors' seniority, institution or country. It is not a guarantee of perfect impartiality — a distinctive method or a self-citation pattern can sometimes reveal authorship — but it materially reduces a well-documented source of bias.

Workflow, Stage by Stage

Nine stages, three roles. The colour of each stage shows who acts: Author Editor / office Reviewers

1. SubmissionAuthorManuscript uploaded through the portal; a paper ID is issued
2. Editorial screeningEditorScope, completeness, declarations and similarity checked
3. Reviewer assignmentEditorSubject experts without a conflict are invited
4. AssessmentReviewersOriginality, method, evidence, clarity and ethics evaluated
5. RecommendationReviewersAccept, minor revision, major revision or reject
6. DecisionEditorReports weighed; the editor decides and writes to the author
7. RevisionAuthorPoint-by-point response and a revised manuscript
8. Final decisionEditorAcceptance, further revision, or rejection
9. ProductionEditorial officeCopy editing, proofing, DOI registration (on request), publication

Transparent Peer Review

IJCRT is a Transparent, Peer-Reviewed, Open Access Journal (Refereed Journal). Review is double-blind while it happens; after the decision it can be opened up — a Transparent Peer Review Report on request, optional reviewer identity, a public review history and a verifiable certificate.

The transparent process at a glance

1. SubmissionThe manuscript is checked for plagiarism, formatting and scope before it goes any further.
2. Reviewer assignmentExpert reviewers are assigned through the Scholar9 portal, chosen on expertise, review history and availability.
3. Open, transparent reviewOriginality, method, significance and clarity are assessed under one of the three open models.
4. Decision and revisionAccept, minor or major revision, or reject; authors revise against the written feedback.
5. Post-publication transparencySelected reports, consenting reviewers’ names and the decision are made public, and the certificate is issued.
6. Verify itAnyone can open the review record on Scholar9 and check it against the article.

Transparent vs traditional peer review

Recognition for Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers and editorial board members who take part in transparent review receive formal recognition for the work — work that closed review leaves invisible.

• An official Transparent Peer Review Certificate
• A reviewer or editor appreciation letter
• Verified proof of review activity on Scholar9, usable for promotions, institutional records and research portfolios
• Recognition for ethical, unbiased and careful evaluation

Join the reviewer panel

Editorial Screening

Before any reviewer is invited, the editorial office checks that the submission is reviewable at all. A manuscript is returned or declined at this stage if:

• It falls outside the journal's subject coverage, or no suitable reviewer exists for it
• It is incomplete — missing abstract, references, figures or required declarations
• Similarity exceeds the limit in the Plagiarism Policy
• It reports research on human participants or animals without the required ethical approval and consent statements
• It is already published or under review elsewhere

Screening protects reviewers' time. Sending a reviewer a manuscript that was never going to be publishable is a cost borne by volunteers, and journals that skip this step burn out their reviewer pool.

Reviewer Assignment

Reviewers are selected for subject expertise and methodological fit, and must have no conflict with the work. The editor avoids reviewers at the authors' institution, recent co-authors, and anyone with a financial or personal interest in the outcome.

Reviewers are invited rather than assigned; they may decline, and are asked to do so promptly if the topic is outside their expertise or their workload will not allow a timely report. Authors may suggest or request exclusion of reviewers in a covering note, with reasons; the editor is not bound by either.

Assessment Criteria

Every reviewer answers the same eight questions, so papers are judged on one yardstick:

Reviewers are asked to distinguish clearly between changes required to make the work sound, and suggestions the authors may reasonably decline.

What Each Decision Means

A rejection is not a judgement on the authors. Papers rejected by one journal are routinely published elsewhere after revision, and the reviewer comments are usually the most useful thing an author receives.

Acceptance and Publication Time

The journal does not advertise a guaranteed turnaround. Review duration depends on how quickly suitable reviewers accept, how long they need to read the work properly, and how much revision is required. A journal that guarantees a decision within a fixed number of days is, in effect, telling you that the review is not what determines the outcome.

What the journal does commit to: screening begins on receipt, authors are told the decision as soon as it is made, and enquiries quoting a paper ID are answered. If you have heard nothing and your paper ID is more than a few weeks old, write to editor@ijcrt.org rather than resubmitting, which creates a duplicate record.

Preparing for Blind Review

Double-blind review only works if the manuscript itself does not identify its authors:

• Remove author names, affiliations and acknowledgements from the main file
• Refer to your own prior work in the third person, not as "in our earlier study"
• Strip identifying metadata from the document's file properties
• Anonymise institution names in methods where this does not damage the science — where the setting is essential to the work, say so and let the editor judge
• Put funding statements and acknowledgements in the separate declarations, not the body

If you are unsure whether something identifies you, ask the editorial office before uploading.

Responding to Reviewers

1. Answer every comment individually, in a separate response letter, in the order raised.
2. State what you changed and where, with section and page numbers.
3. Where you disagree, say so and explain why, with evidence. A reasoned disagreement is legitimate; silently ignoring a comment is not.
4. Highlight the changes in the revised manuscript so they can be found quickly.
5. Return the revision within the time given, or ask for an extension before it expires.

Reviewers volunteer their time. A courteous, substantive response letter moves a manuscript through a second round considerably faster than a defensive one.

For Reviewers

• Accept only assignments within your expertise and the time you genuinely have.
• Treat the manuscript as confidential — do not share it, cite it, or use its findings before publication.
• Do not upload manuscripts to public AI services; that is a breach of confidentiality.
• Declare any conflict and withdraw where one exists.
• Comment on the work, not the presumed author. Be specific and point to the text.
• Separate what must change from what you would merely prefer.
• Raise integrity concerns privately with the handling editor rather than making public allegations.

Researchers interested in joining the reviewer panel may write to editor@ijcrt.org with their research area and a link to their publication record.

Integrity During Review

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished material for their own advantage, share it with third parties, or delay a competitor's work. Where a reviewer is found to have breached confidentiality, they are removed from the panel.

Where a concern about research integrity is raised during review, the editor investigates before deciding, giving the authors an opportunity to respond. The procedures are in Publication Ethics.

Appeals

Authors who believe a decision rested on a factual error or a misunderstanding may appeal in writing, quoting the paper ID and setting out specifically what was misunderstood, with evidence. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision where possible, and the outcome is final. Disagreement with a reviewer's judgement, on its own, is not grounds for appeal. See Complaints and Appeals.

Related Pages

• Publication Guidelines
• Peer Review Policy
• Journal Transparency
• Call for Paper