Peer Review Policy

IKAD-ECCR uses double-anonymous peer review. Authors and reviewers are not informed of each other's identities during the review process.

1. Editorial screening

Every submission is first screened for relevance to the journal, scholarly contribution, originality, reporting quality, ethical integrity, and basic technical requirements. Manuscripts that are clearly outside scope or do not meet minimum scholarly standards may be declined without external review.

2. Independent external review

Research manuscripts proceeding to peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise.

3. Reviewer criteria

Reviewers assess originality, theoretical contribution, methodological appropriateness, ethical integrity, transparency, quality of evidence, clarity of interpretation, relevance to the literature, and implications for research, policy, or practice.

4. Review timeframe

Reviewers are normally invited to submit their reports within four weeks. Authors should recognise that specialist or interdisciplinary manuscripts may require additional time to secure appropriate expertise.

5. Editorial decisions

Recommendations may include acceptance, revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not mechanically determine the editorial decision. The responsible editor evaluates the manuscript, reviews, author responses, and the integrity of the overall process.

6. Divergent reviews

If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification, conduct an additional assessment, or appoint a third independent reviewer.

7. Confidentiality and conflicts

Reviewers must preserve confidentiality and disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest. They should decline assignments where their independence could reasonably be questioned.

8. Editorial-board submissions

Articles submitted by editors, editorial-board members, or persons with a close relationship to the journal receive no preferential treatment. The author-editor is excluded from access to, and influence over, the review and decision process for their own manuscript.

9. Use of artificial intelligence

Reviewers remain personally responsible for their assessments. Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to external generative-AI services that may retain or process unpublished content. AI must not substitute for expert scholarly judgement.

10. Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe a material error occurred in the editorial or peer-review process. Appeals should address substantive issues rather than disagreement with an unfavourable decision alone.