IST Publications follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest quality of published research.
Innovative Science and Technology Publications follows a double-blind external peer review process for an effective evaluation method with our expert Editors' involvement. These individuals are senior personnel with in-depth content expertise who are responsible for journal content.
Our editorial team performs an initial appraisal of every submitted manuscript based on timeliness, the interest and importance of the topic, the use of the scientific method, the clarity of presentation (including the standard of English), and the relevance to readers.
If the article is considered suitable to be sent to peer review, it will be reviewed by members of the journal's international Editorial Board and/or other specialists of equal repute.
These individuals are recruited by the editorial team based on their expertise and standing in their field. Reviewers are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review of an article.
The peer-review process will be double-blinded. This means neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities during the review process.
Editorial team evaluates submission for scope, quality, and completeness.
Qualified reviewers are identified and invited based on expertise.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed feedback.
Editor-in-Chief makes final decision based on reviewer recommendations.
Authors address reviewer comments and resubmit revised manuscript.
Peer Reviewers complete a referee report form and provide general comments to the journal Editor-in-Chief and both general and specific comments to the author(s).
Constructive comments that might help authors improve their work are passed anonymously (even if the paper is not ultimately accepted).
The final decision on acceptability for publication lies with the journal expert Editor-in-Chief. Possible outcomes include:
Revised manuscripts may be subject to further peer review if appropriate.
If an author appeals an editor's decision, the appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult with one or more senior editors, and may discuss the appeal with the decision editor who handled the manuscript.
The Editor-in-Chief may choose to:
A submitted manuscript is a confidential communication, and peer reviewers must not retain, share, or copy it unless approved by the decision editor, e.g., for the purpose of getting confidential input from a colleague; such colleague must also be bound by the same level of confidentiality.
It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure adequate removal of identifying information prior to manuscript submission for the double-blind review process to be effective.
The decision editors routinely assess all reviews for quality, assigning a score (1-4 scale) for each review. Both ratings of quality and other performance characteristics (e.g., timeliness of reviews, and number of review invitations accepted, declined, and ignored) will be assessed periodically.
Reviewers whose performance is inadequate will not be reappointed. This ensures consistent quality in our peer review process.
This review process supports the publication of unbiased, scientifically accurate, and subject-relevant research.