Peer Review Policy

Samshodh: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal (SIMRJ) follows a double-blind peer review process. In line with the aims and mission of the journal, all submitted manuscripts are normally reviewed by two independent subject experts. Additional or supplementary reviews may be sought when necessary to ensure high academic quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to multidisciplinary research.

Reviewers are expected to follow the journal’s Ethics and Publication Policy and adhere to internationally accepted ethical standards, including the principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editors and reviewers are trained to identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest, and to report any concerns to the editorial office.

Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria: (i) relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, (ii) originality, technical quality, clarity, and academic rigor, (iii) methodological soundness, and (iv) contribution to existing knowledge and interdisciplinary relevance.

Review Process

  • All manuscripts are initially screened by the Managing Editor for completeness, formatting, and compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines. Manuscripts may be returned to authors for correction before further processing.
  • The Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editors assess the submission to determine its suitability for peer review based on the journal’s scope, editorial standards, and scholarly relevance.
  • Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant subject expertise, who selects appropriate reviewers and manages the review process.
  • Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewer selection considers subject relevance, research methods, and technical expertise.
  • Based on the reviewer reports, the Associate Editor recommends a decision to the Editor-in-Chief.
  • The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Special Cases

  • Editors are excluded from editorial and publication decisions for manuscripts in which they are authors or contributors. In such cases, an alternate Editor will oversee the review process.
  • Guest Editors of special issues or thematic sections are excluded from review decisions for manuscripts they author or co-author. Independent Editors will manage such submissions.

Communication with Authors

Authors receive constructive and reasoned feedback at each stage of the review process. Editorial decisions and reviewer comments are communicated clearly to support academic improvement and transparency.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest arising from personal, academic, or professional relationships with authors, institutions, or funding agencies. In such cases, they must recuse themselves from the review process.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose any information regarding a manuscript to third parties without prior authorization from the editorial office.

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal appeal letter within 14 days of receiving the decision. Appeals must clearly outline technical concerns, new evidence, or potential reviewer conflicts.

Only one appeal per manuscript is permitted. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal in consultation with the editorial board. The final decision of the Editor-in-Chief is binding.

Appeal letters should be submitted to the editorial office through the official journal email address provided on the website.