Peer Review Process

The International Disability and Inclusion Journal (IDIJ) employs a rigorous, fair, and confidential double-anonymized peer review process to ensure the scholarly integrity, relevance, and quality of all published content. The peer review process is guided by transparency, accountability, and adherence to ethical standards in academic publishing. 

  1. Review Model
  • Double-Anonymized Review: Both author and reviewer identities are concealed throughout the review process to ensure impartial evaluation based solely on scholarly merit.
  1. Editorial Screening
  • All submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the editorial team to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, compliance with submission guidelines, and adherence to ethical standards.
  • Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements will be returned to the authors without peer review.
  1. Reviewer Selection
  • Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject matter expertise.
  • Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, experience in disability studies or related disciplines, and previous reviewing performance.
  • Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review invitation.
  1. Evaluation Criteria

           Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and significance of the contribution to disability and inclusion research.
  • Clarity and rigor of the research question, methodology, and analysis.
  • Ethical conduct of research, including appropriate approvals where necessary.
  • Relevance and currency of the literature cited.
  • Coherence, clarity, and structure of writing.
  • Contribution to policy, practice, or theory within the field.
  1. Reviewer Responsibilities
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all materials received in the course of the review process as strictly confidential.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviews must be objective, respectful, and aimed at improving the manuscript’s quality.
  • Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the timeframe agreed upon. Delays must be communicated to the editorial team promptly.
  • Ethical Awareness: Reviewers must report any suspected ethical issues such as plagiarism, data falsification, or inappropriate use of AI.
  1. Editorial Decision-Making
  • After peer review, the handling editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes one of the following decisions:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision
    • Reject
  • Authors are notified of the decision and provided with anonymized reviewer comments.
  • Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers or reassessed by the editorial team, depending on the extent of changes.
  1. Appeals and Disputes
  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed, evidence-based rationale. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board and, if necessary, additional independent reviewers.
  • The final decision on all appeals rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

 

IDIJ is committed to ensuring that the peer review process upholds academic excellence, intellectual integrity, and respect for all contributors. All reviewers and editors are expected to adhere to the ethical standards recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

For questions or concerns about the peer review process, please contact the editorial office