Peer Review Policy

Kashf Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (KJMR) is committed to maintaining academic quality, integrity, fairness, and transparency through a rigorous peer-review process. All scholarly manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to initial editorial screening and peer review before acceptance for publication.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript is initially assessed by the editorial team to determine whether it:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
  • Meets the journal’s submission and formatting requirements;
  • Demonstrates sufficient originality and academic quality;
  • Complies with relevant research and publication ethics;
  • Contains the required ethical approval and informed consent statements, where applicable; and
  • Has passed plagiarism and textual-similarity screening.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet the required academic standard, contains serious ethical concerns, or fails to comply with the submission requirements.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

KJMR follows a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Authors must remove their names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and any other identifying information from the manuscript file before peer review.

This review process applies to scholarly manuscripts submitted across all sections of the journal.

3. Number and Independence of Reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers through the double-blind peer-review process.

Reviewers must:

  • Have appropriate qualifications and expertise in the manuscript’s subject area;
  • Be independent of the authors and their institutions;
  • Have no personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial conflict of interest relating to the manuscript;
  • Not participate in the final editorial decision concerning the manuscript; and
  • Provide an objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessment.

If an invited reviewer declines the invitation or is unable to complete the review, another suitably qualified independent reviewer will be appointed.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their subject expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, and relevant scholarly contributions.

Reviewer selection is managed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor. Reviewers must not be selected where a relationship or conflict could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, the independence and impartiality of the review.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers when requested; however, the journal is not required to appoint the suggested individuals. The final selection of reviewers remains the responsibility of the journal.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge;
  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • Academic, scientific, theoretical, or methodological quality;
  • Validity and reliability of the methods, analysis, and conclusions;
  • Significance and relevance of the findings;
  • Compliance with relevant research and publication ethics;
  • Clarity, organisation, and quality of academic writing;
  • Appropriate use and accuracy of references; and
  • Overall suitability for publication in the journal.

The evaluation criteria may be adapted according to the discipline and manuscript type.

6. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, and editorial communications must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorised individuals;
  • Disclose information obtained through the review process;
  • Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript; or
  • Use unpublished information, data, ideas, or findings for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must return or securely delete the review materials after completing the review process.

7. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer who has a relevant conflict of interest must decline the review invitation or inform the Editor immediately. The reviewer will be replaced by another independent and suitably qualified reviewer.

Editors must also disclose conflicts of interest and must not handle manuscripts where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Such manuscripts will be assigned to another qualified editor.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept;
  • Accept subject to minor revisions;
  • Major revisions and resubmission;
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and must be supported by clear academic reasons and constructive comments.

Acceptance of a manuscript is never guaranteed at the time of submission or payment of any publication-related fee.

9. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

Where the two reviewers provide substantially different or conflicting recommendations, the Editor may:

  • Examine the academic reasons supporting each recommendation;
  • Request clarification or additional comments from the reviewers; or
  • Appoint a third independent external reviewer.

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor remains responsible for the final editorial decision.

10. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • A revised version of the manuscript;
  • A detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments; and
  • A reasoned explanation where a reviewer’s recommendation has not been followed.

Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the handling editor.

More than one round of revision may be required before a final decision is made.

11. Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept, request revision, or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor after considering:

  • The independent reviewers’ reports;
  • The manuscript’s academic quality and originality;
  • Its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • Its methodological or theoretical soundness; and
  • Its compliance with ethical and publication requirements.

Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit. Authors’ nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, professional status, financial circumstances, payment of publication charges, or eligibility for a fee waiver will not influence the peer-review outcome.

12. Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the timeframe communicated by the journal.

Where an unreasonable delay occurs, the journal may appoint a replacement reviewer and will communicate the status of the manuscript to the corresponding author.

The corresponding author will receive the editorial decision together with the relevant anonymous reviewer comments.

13. Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

Reviewers must inform the Editor if they identify suspected:

  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication;
  • Fabricated, falsified, or manipulated data;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Unethical research involving humans, animals, or sensitive information;
  • Citation manipulation; or
  • Any other form of research or publication misconduct.

Such concerns will be investigated in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Plagiarism Policies before a final editorial decision is made.