1. Review Model

IJVEA applies a double-anonymized peer-review process. Under this model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process.

Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial office checks whether the review file contains information that could reveal the identity of the authors. Authors are responsible for preparing an anonymized manuscript file and removing identifying details from the document.

Identifying information that should normally be removed includes:

• author names and academic titles;
• institutional affiliations;
• email addresses and researcher identifiers;
• author biographies;
• acknowledgements that reveal identity;
• institutional ethics information that unnecessarily identifies the authors;
• file properties containing author names;
• self-references written in a way that directly reveals authorship.

The editorial office may return a manuscript to the authors when the anonymized review file still contains identifying information.

2. Peer Review Workflow

Every manuscript is processed through the following stages.

1. 1

   Submission Received

   The manuscript is submitted through the IJVEA online submission system. The system records the submission and notifies the editorial office.

2. 2

   Administrative Screening

   The editorial office checks the completeness of the submission, required metadata, manuscript format, author declarations, anonymized review file, and supplementary documents.

3. 3

   Scope and Quality Screening

   An editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope and meets minimum standards of originality, relevance, clarity, methodology, and scholarly contribution.

4. 4

   Similarity Examination

   The manuscript may be examined for textual similarity, plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate reuse, and substantial overlap with existing works.

5. 5

   Reviewer Assignment

   The handling editor identifies independent reviewers with relevant expertise and without known conflicts of interest.

6. 6

   Peer Review

   Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit recommendations and comments for the editor and authors.

7. 7

   Editorial Decision

   The editor considers the reviewer reports, the manuscript, and relevant ethical or methodological issues before issuing an editorial decision.

8. 8

   Author Revision

   When revision is requested, the authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the reviewers and editor.

9. 9

   Final Evaluation

   The revised manuscript is evaluated by the handling editor and may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when necessary.

10. 10

    Copyediting and Publication

    Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, author proofreading, layout production, metadata verification, and publication.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo administrative and editorial screening before external peer review. This stage does not constitute formal peer review and does not guarantee that the manuscript will be sent to reviewers.

3.1 Administrative Screening

The editorial office may check:

• completion of required submission metadata;
• use of the IJVEA manuscript template;
• completeness of the manuscript structure;
• availability of declarations and supporting documents;
• quality and readability of tables and figures;
• reference formatting;
• anonymization of the review file;
• compliance with language and technical requirements.

Administratively incomplete submissions may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial assessment.

3.2 Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates:

• alignment with the aims and scope of IJVEA;
• originality and significance of the topic;
• clarity of the research problem and objectives;
• adequacy of the research design and methods;
• quality of analysis and interpretation;
• relevance of the references;
• ethical compliance;
• overall potential contribution to the journal's readership.

3.3 Editorial Rejection Before Peer Review

A manuscript may be rejected without external review when:

• it is outside the journal's aims and scope;
• it lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution;
• the research question is unclear or inadequately developed;
• the methodology contains fundamental weaknesses;
• the results do not support the conclusions;
• the manuscript contains substantial plagiarism or duplication;
• required ethical approval or informed consent is absent;
• the manuscript is seriously incomplete or poorly prepared;
• the article type is not accepted by IJVEA;
• the submission does not meet minimum academic standards.

Editorial rejection before external review is intended to prevent unnecessary delay for authors and reviewers.

4. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript that proceeds to external review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Additional reviewers may be invited when:

• the reviewer recommendations differ substantially;
• specialized methodological or statistical expertise is required;
• the manuscript covers several distinct disciplines;
• ethical, technical, or interpretive concerns require further assessment;
• a reviewer report is incomplete or insufficiently supported;
• an editorial appeal requires an additional independent opinion.

A manuscript is not automatically accepted merely because one or more reviewers recommend acceptance. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and form only one part of the editorial decision.

5. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience, publication record, methodological competence, professional standing, availability, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

5.1 Selection Criteria

A suitable reviewer should normally:

• possess expertise relevant to the manuscript;
• understand the methodology used in the study;
• have recent scholarly or professional experience in the field;
• be independent from the authors;
• have no known financial, personal, institutional, or academic conflict;
• be able to complete the review within the requested period;
• agree to comply with IJVEA confidentiality and ethics requirements.

5.2 Reviewer Independence

Reviewers should not be selected when they:

• work at the same institution as an author;
• have recently collaborated or published with an author;
• have a close personal or supervisory relationship with an author;
• have a direct financial interest in the research outcome;
• are involved in a significant academic dispute with an author;
• cannot provide an objective and independent assessment.

5.3 Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may be permitted to suggest potential reviewers or identify reviewers whom they believe should be excluded. The editor is not required to follow these suggestions.

Suggested reviewers must be independent and must not have a recent collaboration, shared affiliation, close personal relationship, or other relevant conflict with the authors.

The editorial office may independently verify the identity, institutional affiliation, expertise, and contact information of suggested reviewers.

5.4 Reviewer Identity Verification

To reduce the risk of reviewer impersonation or review manipulation, IJVEA may verify reviewer identities through institutional email addresses, researcher identifiers, publication records, institutional profiles, or direct confirmation.

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria.

6.1 Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations should be supported by clear reasoning. Reviewers are expected to distinguish critical concerns from optional suggestions.

Reviewers should not recommend rejection solely because:

• the authors use a different but valid theoretical perspective;
• the findings do not support the reviewer's preferred conclusion;
• the manuscript does not cite the reviewer's work when it is not directly relevant;
• the writing style differs from the reviewer's personal preference;
• the study reports negative or non-significant results that remain methodologically valid.

7. Review Duration

IJVEA seeks to complete the editorial and peer-review process efficiently while maintaining scholarly quality and fairness.

The stated durations are editorial targets rather than guaranteed deadlines. Review time may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional expertise, the number of revision rounds, and the responsiveness of authors.

8. Editorial Decisions

After considering reviewer reports and conducting an independent editorial assessment, the editor may issue one of the following decisions.

Reviewer recommendations do not operate as votes. The editor may reach a decision that differs from one or more reviewer recommendations when the decision is supported by scholarly, methodological, ethical, or editorial considerations.

When reviewer reports conflict substantially, the editor may:

• independently evaluate the disputed issues;
• request clarification from reviewers;
• invite an additional reviewer;
• consult a statistical or methodological expert;
• request further explanation or evidence from the authors.

9. Revision Procedure

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must submit:

• a clean revised manuscript;
• a marked or highlighted version showing changes, when requested;
• a point-by-point response to every reviewer and editor comment;
• supporting documents or revised supplementary files, where applicable.

9.1 Point-by-Point Response

The response letter should:

1. quote or summarize each reviewer comment;
2. state clearly how the manuscript was revised;
3. identify the relevant page, paragraph, table, or figure;
4. provide a reasoned explanation when a suggestion is not followed;
5. remain professional and evidence-based.

9.2 Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

A revised manuscript may be evaluated by:

• the handling editor;
• the original reviewers;
• new reviewers with relevant expertise;
• a statistical, methodological, language, or ethics specialist.

Submission of a revision does not guarantee acceptance. The revised manuscript must adequately address the principal concerns and continue to satisfy the journal's editorial and ethical standards.

9.3 Revision Deadline

The revision period is determined according to the extent of the requested changes. Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline.

A manuscript may be closed or administratively withdrawn when the authors do not submit a revision, request an extension, or respond to editorial communication within the specified period.

9.4 Multiple Revision Rounds

IJVEA may request more than one revision round when important concerns remain unresolved. However, editors should avoid unnecessary revision cycles and should provide clear direction when further changes are required.

10. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, and supplementary files are confidential materials.

10.1 Responsibilities of Editors

Editors must not disclose manuscript information to anyone except:

• the authors;
• assigned reviewers;
• authorized editorial personnel;
• independent advisers consulted for a legitimate editorial purpose;
• relevant institutions or authorities when an ethical investigation requires disclosure.

10.2 Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;
• use unpublished ideas, methods, results, or data;
• upload confidential manuscript content to public platforms;
• contact the authors directly;
• delegate a review without editorial permission;
• disclose their identity when the journal's review model requires anonymity.

10.3 Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, personal data, or unpublished research content to generative artificial intelligence services when doing so may expose the material to unauthorized processing, retention, or use.

Any approved use of automated tools must comply with IJVEA's confidentiality, data protection, and AI usage policies. Human reviewers and editors remain fully responsible for all assessments and decisions.

11. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

Relevant conflicts may include:

• recent research collaboration with an author;
• current or recent employment at the same institution;
• supervisory, mentoring, or student relationships;
• close personal or family relationships;
• financial or commercial interests;
• patent, licensing, or consultancy interests;
• direct academic competition or dispute;
• strong personal advocacy concerning the manuscript's outcome;
• previous involvement in the submitted work.

11.1 Reviewer Conflicts

A reviewer who has a relevant conflict must decline the invitation or disclose the conflict to the editor before proceeding.

11.2 Editor Conflicts

An editor must not oversee a manuscript when a relevant conflict compromises or appears to compromise independence. The manuscript must be reassigned to another qualified editor.

11.3 Manuscripts Submitted by Editors

A manuscript submitted by an IJVEA editor, editorial board member, staff member, or publisher representative must be handled independently. The submitting individual must have no access to reviewer selection, reviewer identities, confidential reports, or the final editorial decision beyond the information ordinarily provided to authors.

12. Final Decision Authority

The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief may delegate manuscript handling and preliminary decisions to an associate editor or designated handling editor.

The final decision is based on:

• the manuscript's scholarly quality and relevance;
• reviewer reports and recommendations;
• the authors' responses and revisions;
• methodological and ethical compliance;
• the originality and reliability of the work;
• consistency with IJVEA editorial policies.

The publisher, sponsor, owner, or external party must not interfere with individual manuscript decisions for financial, institutional, political, or personal reasons.

Acceptance may be reconsidered before publication when:

• serious ethical concerns emerge;
• the authors provide misleading or incomplete information;
• substantial plagiarism or duplicate publication is identified;
• required revisions are not completed;
• the reliability of the research is materially undermined.

13. Reviewer Conduct and Review Quality

Reviewer reports should be constructive, specific, respectful, and supported by scholarly reasoning.

IJVEA does not permit:

• personal attacks or insulting language;
• discriminatory comments;
• unsupported accusations of misconduct;
• coercive citation requests;
• deliberate delay of review for competitive advantage;
• use of confidential information for personal benefit;
• delegation of the review without permission;
• submission of fabricated, automated, or superficial review reports.

The editor may disregard an inadequate review report, request clarification, discontinue use of a reviewer, or report serious misconduct to the reviewer's institution when appropriate.

14. Appeals Concerning Peer Review Decisions

Authors may submit an appeal when they believe that a significant factual, methodological, procedural, or ethical error affected the editorial decision.

An appeal should:

• identify the manuscript and editorial decision;
• state the specific grounds for appeal;
• respond directly to the relevant reviewer or editor comments;
• provide supporting evidence where applicable;
• avoid personal attacks or unsupported claims.

General disagreement with a reviewer or dissatisfaction with rejection is not sufficient by itself to justify reconsideration.

Appeals may be evaluated by an editor who was not primarily responsible for the original decision. The journal may request an additional independent review when necessary.