Peer Review Policy

The primary objective of this peer review policy is to ensure the highest quality of scholarly work published in the International Journal for Conventional and Non-Conventional Warfare. This policy outlines the procedures for rigorous peer review, aiming to maintain the journal's credibility and relevance in the field of warfare studies.

Scope

This policy applies to all original research articles submitted to the journal. It covers the entire peer review process, from the initial submission to the final decision on publication.

Peer Review Process

  1. Initial Submission:

    • All submissions undergo a preliminary check for adherence to the journal's guidelines regarding format, style, and ethical considerations.
    • Submissions that meet the basic criteria are sent for peer review.

  2. Selection of Reviewers:

    • The editor-in-chief or associate editors select qualified reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant field, academic standing, and availability.
    • Reviewers are chosen to ensure a diverse range of perspectives and geographical representation.

  3. Review Process:

    • Reviewers are asked to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript, considering factors such as originality, significance, methodology, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical standards.
    • Reviewers may be asked to provide specific comments and suggestions for improvement.
    • The review process is typically conducted in a double-blind manner, where the reviewers' identities are kept confidential from the authors.

  4. Evaluation of Reviews:

    • The editor-in-chief or associate editors carefully consider the reviewers' comments and recommendations.
    • If there is a significant disagreement among reviewers, additional reviews may be sought.

  5. Decision Making:

    • Based on the reviews and the editor's evaluation, one of the following decisions is made:
      • Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form or with minor revisions.
      • Revisions Requested: The manuscript is accepted subject to revisions addressing the reviewers' comments.
      • Rejection: The manuscript is rejected for publication.

  6. Appeals Process:

    • Authors who receive a rejection decision may submit a formal appeal to the editor-in-chief, providing compelling reasons for reconsideration.
    • The appeal will be reviewed by the editor-in-chief and may involve additional peer review.

Ethical Considerations

  • All reviewers are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards in their evaluations.
  • Conflicts of interest must be declared by reviewers, and any potential bias should be disclosed.
  • Plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct will be strictly dealt with.

Confidentiality

  • The confidentiality of all submissions and reviews is maintained throughout the peer review process.
  • Only the editor-in-chief, associate editors, and reviewers have access to the manuscript.

Timeline

  • The journal aims to provide feedback to authors within a reasonable timeframe. However, the exact duration of the review process may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers.

Continuous Improvement

The journal is committed to regularly reviewing and updating its peer review policy to ensure its effectiveness and alignment with evolving best practices in scholarly publishing.