IRASS Publisher is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, independent, and academically rigorous peer-review process for manuscripts submitted to its journals.

Peer review is an essential part of the editorial process and is used to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, academic significance, and overall contribution of submitted manuscripts.

IRASS journals are peer-reviewed, and manuscripts are evaluated according to the requirements and scope of the respective journal.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The editorial assessment may consider:

• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

• Originality and academic contribution.

• Manuscript quality and completeness.

• Compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines.

• Research and publication ethics.

• Plagiarism or excessive similarity.

• Overall suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, substantially fail to meet submission requirements, or raise significant ethical concerns may be rejected or returned to the authors before external peer review.

Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are evaluated by qualified reviewers with appropriate knowledge or expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

IRASS seeks to select reviewers based on:

• Relevant academic or professional expertise.

• Knowledge of the subject or research methodology.

• Ability to provide an objective scholarly assessment.

• Availability to complete the review.

• Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to provide independent and constructive assessments.

The journal follows a confidential peer-review process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to relevant academic and scholarly criteria, which may include:

• Originality of the research.

• Relevance and significance of the study.

• Clarity of research objectives.

• Quality of the literature review.

• Appropriateness of the methodology.

• Validity and presentation of results.

• Quality of analysis and discussion.

• Whether conclusions are supported by the findings.

• Quality and relevance of references.

• Overall clarity and academic presentation.

The specific evaluation criteria may vary according to the subject area and article type.

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are considered by the editor when making the final editorial decision.

A reviewer recommendation does not automatically determine the final outcome. The final decision remains the responsibility of the journal's authorized editor.

After considering the manuscript and available reviewer reports, the editor may:

• Accept the manuscript.

• Request minor revisions.

• Request major revisions.

• Reject the manuscript.

Where reviewer assessments are substantially different or additional expertise is required, the editor may seek further evaluation before reaching a decision.

The editorial decision is based on the scholarly and editorial merits of the manuscript.

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments carefully and revise the manuscript accordingly.

Authors may be requested to provide a revised manuscript and a response explaining how the substantive reviewer comments have been addressed.

A revised manuscript may undergo further editorial or peer-review assessment where considered necessary.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and all information obtained during the review process.

Reviewers should:

• Treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.

• Provide objective and constructive comments.

• Avoid personal or offensive remarks.

• Identify relevant academic or methodological concerns.

• Disclose any potential conflict of interest.

• Not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

• Not share manuscript content without authorization.

Reviewers should decline a review assignment where a conflict of interest may compromise their impartiality.

Editors and reviewers are expected to disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where a significant conflict exists, appropriate steps may be taken to ensure that the manuscript receives an impartial assessment.

Editorial decisions should not be influenced by personal, institutional, financial, or other interests unrelated to the academic quality of the manuscript.

During editorial assessment and peer review, concerns relating to research or publication ethics may be investigated.

Such concerns may include:

• Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse.

• Duplicate or redundant publication.

• Fabrication or falsification of research.

• Manipulation of data or results.

• Authorship concerns.

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

• Other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Where necessary, IRASS may request clarification, supporting documentation, or appropriate corrections before proceeding with publication.

IRASS maintains a separation between editorial evaluation and publication processing.

Editorial decisions are based on the academic and editorial suitability of the manuscript.

The payment or non-payment of publication charges does not determine whether a manuscript is academically suitable for publication.

Where expedited publication services are available, they do not replace the applicable editorial and peer-review requirements.

IRASS considers peer review an important component of responsible scholarly publishing.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher are expected to maintain standards of academic integrity, confidentiality, fairness, and professional conduct throughout the publication process.

Peer-review practices are applied in conjunction with the journal's publication ethics and research-integrity policies.

Authors who believe that a significant procedural error or misunderstanding affected an editorial decision may contact the journal to request an editorial reconsideration.

An appeal should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant information supporting the request.

An appeal does not guarantee that the original editorial decision will be changed.

Peer review does not eliminate the possibility of concerns arising after publication.

IRASS may consider credible post-publication concerns relating to the accuracy, integrity, or ethical status of published research.

Where appropriate, the publisher may issue a correction, editorial notice, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with applicable publication-ethics procedures.

IRASS makes its peer-review policy publicly available to authors, reviewers, readers, and the wider academic community.

The publisher is committed to ensuring that the peer-review process described on the official website corresponds with the process followed in practice.

Individual journals may provide additional information regarding their review procedures according to their subject area and publication requirements.

IRASS Publisher periodically reviews this Peer Review Policy to ensure that its editorial and peer-review practices remain consistent with developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity, and recognized standards of academic publishing.

Any material revision to this policy will be published on the official IRASS Publisher website.

________________________________________

IRASS Publisher is committed to a peer-review process that promotes academic quality, fairness, confidentiality, editorial independence, research integrity, and transparency.

The purpose of peer review is to support informed editorial decisions and contribute to the quality and reliability of the scholarly record.