Double Blind Peer Review Policy

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

Commitment to Fair and Objective Peer Review

Universitas: Journal of Global Research and Innovation (UJGRI) employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure that editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

Under this model, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the peer-review process. This approach minimizes potential bias and promotes fairness, impartiality, and academic integrity in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

The journal adheres to internationally recognized principles of ethical peer review, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Peer Review Process

Following successful completion of the initial editorial and technical screening, manuscripts that satisfy the journal's submission requirements proceed to external peer review.

Each eligible manuscript is ordinarily evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant subject area. The Editorial Board may appoint additional reviewers when specialized expertise or further evaluation is required.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • subject-matter expertise;

  • research and publication experience;

  • absence of conflicts of interest; and

  • ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Handling Editor oversees the review process and makes editorial decisions based on the reviewers' recommendations and the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript.

2. Double-Blind Review

To preserve anonymity throughout the review process:

  • authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other identifying information from the manuscript submitted for review;

  • the editorial office verifies that manuscripts and supplementary files are appropriately anonymized before reviewer assignment;

  • reviewers are not informed of the identities of the authors; and

  • authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers unless disclosure is expressly authorized under a separate journal policy.

The journal makes every reasonable effort to maintain confidentiality throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts objectively based on the following criteria, where applicable:

  • originality and contribution to knowledge;

  • significance and relevance to the journal's aims and scope;

  • clarity of the research objectives and research questions;

  • appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;

  • quality, validity, and reliability of data analysis;

  • soundness of the interpretation and discussion of findings;

  • adequacy and relevance of the literature review;

  • ethical compliance and research integrity;

  • organization, clarity, and quality of academic writing; and

  • overall suitability for publication.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, evidence-based comments that assist authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

4. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editorial assessment, one of the following decisions may be issued:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to final copyediting, proofreading, and production requirements.

Minor Revisions

The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially affect the scientific content. Authors are invited to submit a revised version addressing the reviewers' comments.

Major Revisions

The manuscript has scholarly merit but requires substantial revision before it can be reconsidered for publication. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers for further evaluation.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to significant methodological, ethical, scholarly, or scope-related concerns. Authors may submit a substantially revised version as a new manuscript in the future, provided it addresses the issues identified during the review process.

5. Author Revisions

Authors receiving a revision decision should submit:

  • a revised manuscript with all requested changes incorporated; and

  • a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed or, where appropriate, providing a reasoned justification for any recommendations not adopted.

Failure to respond adequately to reviewer comments may result in rejection of the manuscript.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and confidentially;

  • disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment;

  • decline review invitations when lacking appropriate expertise or availability;

  • provide constructive and respectful feedback supported by scholarly reasoning;

  • identify relevant published work not cited by the authors when appropriate; and

  • avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal advantage.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and associated materials throughout and after the review process.

7. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for:

  • selecting qualified and impartial reviewers;

  • ensuring a fair, timely, and confidential review process;

  • evaluating reviewer recommendations independently and objectively;

  • managing conflicts of interest appropriately;

  • safeguarding the confidentiality of authors, reviewers, and submitted manuscripts; and

  • making publication decisions based solely on scholarly merit and ethical considerations.

Editorial decisions are independent of commercial, institutional, political, or personal influences.

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to Universitas are treated as confidential documents.

Editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and journal personnel shall not disclose or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals, except when necessary for legitimate editorial, ethical, or legal purposes.

9. Ethical Standards

Universitas follows internationally accepted publication ethics and peer-review practices. Allegations of reviewer misconduct, conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, or unethical editorial behavior are investigated in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

The journal is committed to maintaining a peer-review system that is transparent, impartial, rigorous, and focused on advancing high-quality global research and innovation.

This version aligns closely with the peer-review policies used by internationally indexed journals. It removes unnecessary procedural restrictions (such as mandatory GitHub repositories, fixed revision deadlines, and rejection embargoes), expands reviewer and editor responsibilities, strengthens confidentiality provisions, and explicitly aligns the process with COPE principles, making it more suitable for future indexing in DOAJ, Scopus, and Web of Science.