Peer‑Review Policy

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that all manuscripts submitted to Nitee Publication journals are evaluated fairly, transparently, and rigorously. Peer review safeguards the integrity of scholarly publishing and ensures that only high-quality research is disseminated.

Review Model

• All manuscripts are subjected to a double‑blind peer‑review process.
• In this model, both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other.
• This process minimizes bias and ensures the fairest possible evaluation of manuscripts.

Initial Evaluation / Technical Review

• The Editor(s) first evaluate all submissions.
• Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they are:
  • Insufficiently original.
  • Containing serious methodological or scientific flaws.
  • Written in poor English or grammar.
  • Outside the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Not prepared according to journal guidelines.
• Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts are checked using plagiarism detection software. Submissions with unacceptable similarity levels will be rejected or returned for revision.
• AI‑Generated Content Check: Manuscripts are screened for inappropriate or undisclosed use of AI‑generated text, figures, or data. Authors must disclose any use of AI tools in the preparation of their manuscript. Undisclosed or unethical use of AI may result in rejection.
• Manuscripts meeting minimum criteria are forwarded to at least two external experts for peer review.

Peer‑Review Process

• Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two suitable external experts in the relevant subject area.
• Reviewers provide detailed reports on originality, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field.
• The Editor‑in‑Chief (EIC) makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection, considering all reviewer reports.
• The EIC may consult members of the Advisory Board or additional reviewers before making a final decision.
• Managing Editor: Oversees the peer‑review workflow, ensures timely communication, monitors ethical compliance, and coordinates with the EIC.
• Associate Editors / Review Editors: Provide subject‑specific support, assign reviewers, and ensure reports are complete and constructive.
• Assistant Editor: Supports the Managing Editor and Associate Editors by handling correspondence, tracking manuscript progress, and ensuring deadlines are met.
• In accordance with COPE recommendations, Editors will recuse themselves from handling submissions where they have conflicts of interest (e.g., if they are an author of the submitted manuscript). Such submissions will be reassigned to another Editorial Board member or guest editor.

Author’s Suggestion for Reviewers

Authors may suggest potential reviewers under the following conditions:

• Suggested reviewers must have recognised academic standing in the subject area, demonstrated through publications.
• Suggested reviewers must not be affiliated with the authors’ current or past institutions.
• Authors must provide institutional/academic email addresses of suggested reviewers.
• Authors must provide academic profile pages (e.g., ORCID, institutional webpage, or Google Scholar).
• The journal reserves the right not to select any reviewer from the suggested list.

Appeals and Challenges

• If authors challenge a negative editorial decision with suitable arguments, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer.
• The final decision will be based on the recommendations of this reviewer and the Editor‑in‑Chief’s judgment.

Ethical Standards

• Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, and provide constructive, unbiased feedback.
• Editors ensure that peer review is conducted ethically, transparently, and in line with COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
• Authors must disclose any use of AI tools in manuscript preparation to maintain transparency and integrity.