Peer-Review Policy

Type of Peer Review

Inventum Publishers primarily follows a Double Blind Peer Review Model, where:

• Authors do not know the identities of reviewers
• Reviewers do not know the identities of authors

In selected cases (e.g., editorials, invited reviews, or special issues), a Single Blind or Editorial Review may be applied with full transparency.

Overview of the Peer Review Process

Each submitted manuscript follows the steps below:

1. Initial Editorial Screening
2. Plagiarism and Ethical Compliance Check
3. Assignment to Expert Reviewers
4. Peer Review Evaluation
5. Editorial Decision
6. Revision (if required)
7. Final Acceptance or Rejection

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the manuscript is evaluated by the Editor in Chief or Handling Editor to assess:

• Scope relevance to the journal
• Originality and scientific merit
• Compliance with author guidelines
• Ethical standards and policies

Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be desk rejected without external review.

Plagiarism and Ethical Screening

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software to ensure originality.

Manuscripts may be rejected if they exhibit:

• Plagiarism or self plagiarism
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Ethical approval deficiencies (where applicable)

Reviewer Selection

• A minimum of two independent reviewers with subject matter expertise are assigned
• Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, publication record, and research experience
• Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Originality and novelty
• Scientific rigor and methodology
• Validity of results and conclusions
• Clarity of presentation and structure
• Relevance to the journal's scope
• Ethical compliance

Reviewers provide constructive, unbiased, and confidential feedback.

Review Timeline

Inventum Publishers aims for an efficient yet rigorous review process:

• Initial editorial screening: 5-7 days
• Peer review: 2-4 weeks
• First decision: 3-5 weeks (average)

Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and revision rounds.

Editorial Decision Categories

Based on reviewer recommendations, decisions may include:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

The final decision rests with the Editor in Chief, independent of APC considerations.

Revision Process

• Authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a point by point response to reviewers' comments
• Revised submissions may be re reviewed if necessary
• Failure to revise within the specified timeframe may result in rejection

Confidentiality

• All manuscripts and review reports are treated as strictly confidential
• Reviewers must not share, cite, or use unpublished content
• Author identities and data are protected throughout the process

Conflict of Interest

Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose any financial, personal, or academic conflicts of interest.

If a conflict is identified:

• An alternative reviewer or editor will be assigned
• Transparency is maintained at all stages

Ethical Oversight and Misconduct Handling

Inventum Publishers follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for handling:

• Ethical complaints
• Suspected misconduct
• Appeals and disputes

Corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern may be issued where necessary.

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal appeal with detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed independently by senior editorial members.

Independence from APCs

Peer review and editorial decisions are completely independent of Article Processing Charges (APCs). Payment or waiver of APCs has no influence on acceptance decisions.

Transparency Statement

Inventum Publishers ensures that:

• Peer review policies are publicly available
• Review processes are clearly described
• Editorial integrity is strictly maintained