Peer review

Peer Review Process
INSPIRETECH GLOBAL INSIGHT applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure that editorial decisions are fair, objective, and based solely on scholarly merit. In double-blind review, author identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
Double-blind
Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other during review.
Merit-based decisions
Decisions are based on scope fit, rigor, clarity, and ethical compliance.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents.
1
Scope and Initial Editorial Screening
All submissions first undergo an editorial check to confirm:
  • Fit with the journal’s scope and aims
  • Completeness of required components (abstract, references, tables/figures, statements as applicable)
  • Ethical compliance (e.g., ethics approval, informed consent, permissions)
  • Basic scientific quality and clarity
  • Similarity/overlap screening to support originality and proper citation practice
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to authors for correction or rejected before external review.
2
Anonymization (Double-Blind Requirements)
Authors must submit an anonymized manuscript, including:
  • No author names, affiliations, emails, ORCID, acknowledgments, or funding details within the blinded file
  • Removal of identifying information from file properties/metadata
  • Self-citations written in a neutral way where possible (avoid phrasing that reveals identity)
  • A separate title page containing author details uploaded as a supplementary file for editorial use only
Tip for authors: Before uploading, check document properties (Author name) and remove tracked changes/comments that may reveal identity.
3
External Peer Review
Eligible manuscripts are assigned to an editor and sent to independent expert reviewers. Reviewers evaluate:
  • Novelty and significance of the contribution
  • Methodological rigor and appropriateness of analysis
  • Validity of results and conclusions
  • Quality of reporting (clarity, completeness, transparency)
  • Relevance to the field and readers
4
Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethics
Reviewers are expected to:
  • Treat manuscripts as confidential documents
  • Declare any conflicts of interest and decline review when appropriate
  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback
  • Avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage
5
Editorial Decision and Revisions
Based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, decisions include:
Accept Minor Revision Major Revision Reject
Authors must respond to reviewer comments point-by-point and submit a revised manuscript. Additional review rounds may be conducted when necessary.
6
Final Decision and Publication
The editor makes the final decision after confirming that revisions address reviewer concerns and the manuscript complies with editorial, ethical, and reporting standards. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and publication.
7
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe a decision was based on factual errors or unfair assessment. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial leadership and may involve additional independent evaluation.
Recommended appeal content: manuscript ID, decision letter date, specific points of concern, and supporting evidence.