Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Policy & Guidelines of NDU Scientific Journal
Review Model (Double-Blind Peer Review)
All research manuscripts submitted to our journal undergo a strict double-blind peer review process. This means that:
- The authors remain anonymous to the reviewers.
- The reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.
Manuscript files are carefully blinded (removing author names, institutions, and self-citations) prior to being dispatched to the reviewers.
Number of Reviewers and Timeline
Each submission is evaluated by at least 2 (two) independent external reviewers who are subject-matter experts. These experts are selected from outside the journal's core editorial board.
The standard time allocated for peer review is 4 to 8 weeks. If the two reviewers reach contradicting conclusions (e.g. one accept, one reject), the editorial office will appoint a third independent reviewer.
Decision-Making Authority
The Editor-in-Chief holds the sole and final authority to accept, request revisions (minor or major), or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers' evaluations and recommendations.
Appeal Procedure
Authors who disagree with a rejection decision have the right to file an appeal within 30 days of receiving the final decision. The appeal must contain scientific rebuttals and arguments. The Editor-in-Chief, along with an ad-hoc committee of the Editorial Board, will review the appeal. Their decision is final, and no second appeals will be processed.
Confidentiality of Reviewers
Reviewers must treat the manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Sharing any information regarding the manuscript with third parties is strictly prohibited. Ideas and methodologies found in the unpublished manuscript must not be used for personal benefit.
Generative AI Policy in Peer Review
In line with Scopus 2024 directives, reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts to generative AI platforms (such as ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) to assist in drafting reviews. Doing so constitutes a major breach of confidentiality and intellectual property rights. Review reports must be written solely by the human expert.
Reviewer Guidelines
When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are expected to focus on the following key aspects:
- Scientific Novelty & Structure: Does the paper present a clear scientific contribution? Are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion logically structured?
- Methodology: Is the research methodology sound and are the experiments reproducible?
- References: Are the references up-to-date (mostly within the last 5-10 years) and relevant to the study?
- Language & Style: Is the manuscript written in clear, academic language matching scientific standards?
- Ethical Standards: Are there any signs of plagiarism, unauthorized AI-generated text, or data manipulation? Any suspicion must be reported to the Editorial Board immediately.