Peer Review Process
Injects operates a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure that every published article meets high standards of scientific quality, originality, and ethical integrity. The process follows the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All manuscripts are evaluated using a double-blind peer review model, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process.
1. Overview of the Review Stages
Submission: The author submits the manuscript through the journal’s online submission system.
Initial editorial screening: The editorial office checks compliance with the Manuscript Guidelines and the journal’s scope.
Similarity check: The manuscript is screened using plagiarism detection software in accordance with the journal’s Plagiarism Policy.
Peer review: Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers.
Editorial decision: The editor makes a decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations.
Revision: The authors revise the manuscript and respond to the reviewers’ comments.
Final decision and publication: The accepted manuscript proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, and publication.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon receipt, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor assesses whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal, follows the required format, is written in clear English, and presents a sufficiently original and significant contribution. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review, or returned to the authors for correction. This stage normally takes [7 days].
3. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. A reviewer must not have collaborated with the authors in the recent past, must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors, and must not have any personal, financial, or professional interest in the outcome of the review. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the editor is not obliged to follow these suggestions. Authors may also request that specific individuals be excluded, with a reason.
4. Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on the following criteria:
Originality and novelty of the contribution
Relevance to the scope of the journal
Soundness of the research design and methodology
Accuracy and appropriateness of data analysis
Clarity and logical support of the results and conclusions
Adequacy and currency of the literature review and references
Compliance with ethical standards
Quality of language, organization, and presentation
5. Reviewer Recommendations
After evaluation, reviewers submit a written report with one of the following recommendations:
Accept without changes
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject
Reviewers are expected to give constructive, specific, and respectful comments that help authors improve their work. The review is normally completed within [14–21 days] of acceptance of the invitation.
6. Editorial Decision
The editor makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s own assessment. When reviewers’ opinions differ significantly, the editor may invite an additional reviewer before deciding. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, and the decision is communicated to the corresponding author by email together with the anonymized reviewer comments.
7. Revision and Resubmission
Authors invited to revise their manuscript are expected to submit the revised version within [14–30] days, together with a point-by-point response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed, or giving a reasoned rebuttal where the author disagrees. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. A manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision before a final decision is made. Manuscripts that are not resubmitted within the deadline may be considered withdrawn.
8. Appeals
Authors who believe that a rejection decision was based on a misunderstanding or an error in the review process may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within [14] days of the decision, with a detailed explanation. The appeal will be considered by the editorial board, and may involve a new reviewer. The decision on an appeal is final.
9. Confidentiality
All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, discuss, or use the content of a manuscript or any unpublished data for personal advantage, and must not retain copies after the review. Reviewers are not permitted to use generative AI tools to evaluate or summarize a manuscript, as this may breach confidentiality.
10. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence
Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Editors who submit their own work to the journal, or who have a conflict with a submission, will be excluded from the handling of that manuscript, which will be managed by another member of the editorial board. Editorial decisions are made independently, without influence from the publisher, sponsors, or the authors’ ability to pay any fees.
