Peer Review Process

The American Journal of Interdisciplinary Innovations and Research evaluates submissions through editorial assessment and independent peer review. The process assesses originality, methodological soundness, clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to the relevant field.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

The editorial team screens each manuscript for:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope.

• Originality and scholarly contribution.

• Appropriate research methods and adequately supported conclusions.

• Compliance with author guidelines and ethical requirements.

• Clear presentation and complete submission materials.

Manuscripts may be returned for preliminary corrections or declined without external review if they do not meet these requirements. Similarity reports, where used, support editorial judgment; a similarity percentage alone does not determine acceptance or rejection.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass initial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

The journal uses double-blind review: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Authors should submit a separate title page and remove identifying information from the review manuscript and its file properties. Anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when a manuscript has a publicly available preprint.

3. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected for their expertise and ability to provide an impartial assessment. They must disclose conflicts of interest and decline assignments when a relationship or competing interest could compromise their judgment.

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s research question, engagement with existing literature, methods, analysis, interpretation, limitations, and presentation. Review articles and conceptual papers are evaluated according to their stated purpose and evidence base.

Reviews should be constructive, specific, and respectful. Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential, avoid using unpublished information for personal benefit, and obtain editorial permission before involving another person. Confidential manuscript material must not be uploaded to public AI tools or other unauthorized services.

4. Editorial Decisions

The handling editor considers the reviewer reports and makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript meets publication requirements.

• Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required.

• Major Revision: Substantial changes are needed before further consideration.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements or has concerns that cannot be adequately resolved through revision.

Reviewers provide recommendations; the editor makes the final decision. Where reports conflict or additional expertise is needed, the editor may seek another review.

5. Revision and Reassessment

Authors requesting further consideration must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each comment was addressed. Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a reasoned explanation.

Minor revisions may be assessed by the editor. Major revisions are normally returned to reviewers. Additional revision rounds may be necessary, and an invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

6. Review Timelines

Review duration depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions. The editorial office communicates decisions and revision deadlines to the corresponding author. Authors who need additional time should contact the editorial office before the deadline.

7. Research Integrity and Editorial Independence

Concerns about plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate submission, inappropriate authorship, or other ethical issues may lead to a request for clarification, suspension of review, or rejection.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and ethical compliance. Publication charges, where applicable, do not influence reviewer recommendations or guarantee acceptance.

Submissions by editors or editorial board members are handled by an independent editor. The submitting editor or board member takes no part in reviewer selection or the publication decision.

8. Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by providing a specific explanation of an alleged factual error, procedural concern, or misunderstanding, supported by relevant evidence.

Appeals are assessed by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision where feasible. An appeal does not guarantee a new review or acceptance.

9. Final Acceptance and Publication

Following acceptance, manuscripts undergo copyediting, formatting, and proof preparation. Authors are responsible for checking their proofs and confirming the accuracy of author details, references, tables, figures, and declarations.

Substantive changes after acceptance require editorial approval and may require further review.