Peer Review Process-IJAIGP

Review Model

IJAIGP employs a rigorous double-blind peer review model in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the evaluation process. This ensures that manuscript assessments are based entirely on scholarly merit, independent of the author's institutional affiliation, geographic location, seniority, or reputation.

Stages of the Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to IJAIGP progress through the following structured review stages:

•         Submission Check: The editorial office verifies completeness of submission, language quality, and basic formatting compliance.

•         Scope and Quality Desk Review: The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor assesses whether the manuscript is within scope, meets minimum scholarly standards, and is sufficiently developed for external review. Manuscripts that fail this assessment are desk-rejected.

•         Reviewer Identification and Invitation: At least two expert reviewers with relevant disciplinary expertise are identified and formally invited.

•         Double-Blind Peer Review: Reviewers assess the manuscript on originality, scholarly rigor, methodological soundness (where applicable), depth of analysis, policy relevance, and contribution to the field. Each reviewer submits a structured report with a recommendation.

•         Editorial Synthesis and Decision: The handling editor reviews reviewer reports and communicates a consolidated editorial decision to the Editor-in-Chief. Possible decisions are: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

•         Revision and Re-Evaluation: For manuscripts requiring revision, the revised version is re-evaluated by the original reviewers or the handling editor, depending on the nature of changes required.

•         Acceptance and Production: Accepted manuscripts proceed through professional copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and final online publication with DOI assignment.

Reviewer Conduct

All reviewers engaged by IJAIGP are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity. Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest prior to accepting assignments, maintain absolute confidentiality about the manuscript and its contents, complete reviews within the agreed timeframe, and provide constructive, evidence-based, and respectful feedback. Reviewers must not communicate directly with authors outside the journal platform, use unpublished ideas from manuscripts they review, or share manuscript content with any third party.

Appeal Process

Authors who believe that their manuscript was rejected based on factual errors or procedural irregularities may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision. Appeals must clearly articulate the grounds for reconsideration and must not simply re-argue the merits of the manuscript. The editorial decision following a formal appeal is final.