Peer Review Process
EJIEM employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which both the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This mechanism ensures the objectivity and scholarly integrity of all published articles. The final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection of any manuscript rests solely with the Editor in Chief, based on the recommendations of expert reviewers and the journal's editorial standards.
|
Step |
Stage |
Description |
|
01 |
Initial submission |
Author submits the manuscript through the OJS portal. The editorial team conducts a desk check for scope, formatting compliance, and plagiarism screening. |
|
02 |
Editorial screening |
The Editor in Chief performs a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's quality, originality, and relevance to EJIEM's focus and scope. |
|
03 |
Reviewer assignment |
Two or more subject-expert reviewers are assigned in a double-blind manner. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and absence of conflicts of interest. |
|
04 |
Review period |
Reviewers provide detailed, structured comments and recommendations within 4–6 weeks of assignment. Extensions may be granted upon request. |
|
05 |
Author revision |
Authors receive reviewer feedback and are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point rebuttal or response letter. |
|
06 |
Final decision |
The Editor in Chief issues a final decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject — communicated within 8–12 weeks of initial submission. |
Possible editorial decisions include: (1) Accept as submitted; (2) Accept with minor revisions; (3) Major revisions required; (4) Reject with invitation to resubmit; (5) Reject outright. Authors are notified of the decision via the OJS system and by email.
