Peer Review Policy

Publication of articles in IJFR is dependent solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by our editors and/or peer-reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a useful contribution to the field. IJFR acknowledged the effort and suggestions made by its reviewers. The number of reviewers for this journal is around 20 reviewers from various universities and countries.

Initial evaluation of manuscripts
The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted, and this process typically takes 1 to 2 weeks. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those who meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review. 

Type of peer review
Review process employs a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. This review process takes 4 to 6 weeks.

Review reports
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
Is original by stating the objectives and gap clearly
Is methodologically sound
Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
Has results/findings that are clearly presented and support the conclusions
Correctly references previous relevant work
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process.

Decision
Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. Editor’s decision is final.