Editorial Workflow

The peer review process is an essential element of the publication cycle. All manuscripts submitted to undergo extensive peer review by IRP Publication Editorial Board Members and blind reviews by 2 reviewers.Following is the creteria followed

Initial Evaluation

All manuscripts are processed using IRP Publication Manuscript are tracked by internal Tracking System. Once we receive a manuscript, our Editorial Office runs a plagiarism check and screens the manuscript to decide whether or not it should be sent for peer review. It is therefore very important for authors to make sure that their manuscript is well written and is of high quality. During the initial screening, our Editorial Office mainly checks the following:

Does the manuscript fit the journal’s scope?

Is the content of the manuscript is good enough to make it worth reviewing? Is the manuscript compliant with the journal’s Instructions for Authors? Has the manuscript been submitted or published elsewhere? If manuscript fails to meet the journal's requirements, it is immediately rejected.

Peer Review

After manuscAfter manuscripts clear the initial screening, they are assigned to either a Regional Editor/Editor-in-Chief. The Regional Editor/Editor-in-Chief assigns manuscripts to a Handling Editor. The handling editor will send the manuscript to a minimum of 2 reviewers for peer review. Reviewers submit the evaluation results along with their recommendations as one of the following actions:

Accept Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject & Resubmit
Reject

Final Decision

In order for the handling editor to provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript, at least one completed reviews are required. Once the reviewers have submitted their comments, the handling editor will be notified. The handling editor will then send their recommendations to the Regional Editor/Editor-in-Chief. The Regional Editor/Editor-in-Chief delivers and informs the author of the final decision.

If the manuscript is conditionally accepted, authors will be required to revise their manuscript according to the Editor’s suggestions and submit a revised version of their manuscript for further evaluation.

Our Editorial Workflow allows editors to reject manuscripts due to a number of reasons including inappropriateness of the subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of the results. We ensure high quality and unbiased peer-review by sending the manuscript for evaluation to a range of reviewers in different parts of the world.

Complaints

If authors feel any inconvenience in the publication process, they may submit their complaints to info@innovativeresearchpublication.com. The Editorial Office will address complaints regarding the journal’s policies and procedures and may forward the complaint to the respective journal’s Editorial Board, if required.