The International Journal of Arts and Culture (IJAC) employs a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original research that contributes meaningfully to the scientific community. Our peer review process is central to maintaining the integrity, credibility, and relevance of the research we publish.

Double-Blind Peer Review

IJAC uses a double-blind peer review system, which means that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the process. This approach minimizes bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated based solely on their scholarly merit, independent of the identities or affiliations of the authors.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent experts who assess the work’s originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the field. Reviewers are chosen for their ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.

Evaluation Criteria

During the peer review process, reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several key criteria, including:

• Originality: The novelty and significance of the research question and findings.

• Methodology: The appropriateness and rigor of the research design and methods used.

• Results: The validity, reliability, and clarity of the findings presented.

• Discussion: The interpretation of the results in the context of existing research, and the implications for the field.

• Clarity: The quality of writing, organization of the manuscript, and adherence to the journal’s formatting guidelines.

Reviewers also assess whether the manuscript aligns with IJAC’s scope and audience, and whether it meets the ethical standards required for publication.

Decision-Making Process

Based on the reviewers’ evaluations, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with or without minor revisions.

• Revise: The authors are asked to make revisions based on the reviewers’ feedback before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form, or it does not meet the journal’s standards.

If revisions are requested, authors are provided with detailed feedback from the reviewers and are given a specified time frame to resubmit the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript may undergo further review if necessary.

Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

All manuscripts submitted to IJAC are treated with the highest level of confidentiality. Reviewers are required to keep the content of the manuscript and the review process confidential and must not use any information gained during the review process for their personal benefit.
IJAC adheres to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal is committed to ensuring that the peer review process is free from any form of bias or conflict of interest and that all parties involved in the review process conduct themselves with the highest standards of integrity.

Timeliness

The editorial team at IJAC is committed to conducting the peer review process in a timely manner. While we strive to provide authors with prompt decisions, the thoroughness and quality of the review process remain our top priority. Authors are kept informed of the progress of their manuscript throughout the review process.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with the editorial decision on their manuscript have the right to appeal. Appeals must be made in writing to the Editor-in-Chief and should provide a detailed explanation of the grounds for the appeal. The appeal will be reviewed, and a final decision will be communicated to the authors. The decision following an appeal is final.

Guidelines for Reviewers

The International Journal of Arts and Culture (IJAC) relies on the expertise and dedication of its reviewers to maintain the high standards of academic rigor and quality in the manuscripts we publish. The following guidelines are designed to assist reviewers in providing thorough, constructive, and objective evaluations of submissions. Your contribution is invaluable to the success of the peer review process.

1. Confidentiality

• Confidentiality of Manuscripts: Reviewers must treat the manuscripts they review as confidential documents. The content should not be shared with or discussed with anyone outside the peer review process unless authorized by the Editor.

• Conflict of Interest: If you recognize the manuscript or have any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., collaborative, financial, or personal relationships with the authors), please inform the Editor immediately and decline to review the manuscript.

2. Objective and Constructive Evaluation

• Impartiality: Reviews should be conducted objectively and without bias. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Critiques should focus on the content of the manuscript and its scientific merit.

• Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed and constructive feedback that can help authors improve their manuscript. Highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, and suggest specific revisions where necessary.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider the following criteria when evaluating a manuscript:

• Originality: Does the manuscript present new and significant contributions to the field? Is the research question novel and relevant?

• Methodology: Are the research methods appropriate, well-described, and rigorous? Is the study design sound, and are the analyses robust and correctly performed?

• Results: Are the results clearly presented, valid, and reliable? Are the conclusions supported by the data?

• Discussion: Does the discussion adequately interpret the results in the context of existing research? Are the implications of the findings clearly articulated?

• References: Are the references appropriate, current, and correctly cited? Are key works in the field adequately referenced?

• Clarity and Presentation: Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and free of major grammatical errors? Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials of high quality and useful?

4. Recommendation

Based on your evaluation, you will be asked to recommend one of the following actions:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

• Minor Revisions: The manuscript is generally sound but requires minor changes. Provide clear guidance on the revisions needed.

• Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revisions. Provide detailed suggestions for improving the manuscript.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the standards for publication in IJAC. Provide a clear rationale for rejection, along with constructive feedback that might help the authors improve their work for submission to another journal.

5. Timeliness

• Prompt Review: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the time frame provided by the journal (typically 2-4 weeks). If you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the Editor as soon as possible to discuss an extension or to withdraw from the review process.

• Review Submission: Submit your review through the journal’s online submission system, ensuring that all comments and recommendations are clearly documented.

6. Ethical Responsibilities

• Plagiarism Detection: If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or any other ethical issues, please inform the Editor immediately. Reviewers should not independently investigate these issues but should report their concerns to the editorial team.

• Respect for Author Anonymity: As IJAC operates under a double-blind review process, reviewers should avoid seeking out the identity of the authors or disclosing any information that could compromise the anonymity of the review process.

7. Post-Review Process

• Revisions: If the manuscript undergoes revisions based on your feedback, you may be asked to review the revised manuscript to ensure that your concerns have been adequately addressed.

• Final Decision: The final decision on the manuscript is made by the Editor based on the reviewers’ recommendations. Your review plays a crucial role in this decision-making process.

8. Recognition and Acknowledgment

IJAC recognises the critical role that reviewers play in the academic publishing process. We are committed to acknowledging your contributions through:

• Reviewer Credits: We encourage reviewers to register with platforms like Publons or ORCID, where they can receive formal recognition for their peer review activities.

• Reviewer Acknowledgments: IJAC publishes an annual list of reviewers who have contributed to the journal, acknowledging their efforts in supporting the scientific community.