National Research Journal Peer-Review Policy

1. Purpose

National Research Journal (NRJ) uses external peer review to assess the scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity and relevance of manuscripts submitted for publication.

Peer review assists the editors in making fair and evidence-based publication decisions. It also provides authors with constructive recommendations for improving their work. Acceptance is never guaranteed by submission, payment, professional relationship, institutional affiliation or previous publication with the journal or publisher.

2. Historical application of this policy

Formal external peer review began with the first issue of NRJ published in 2022, following the assignment of Print ISSN 2960-3625.

The journal’s 2020–2021 pre-ISSN issues did not undergo the formal external peer-review system introduced in 2022. Those issues are retained as clearly identified legacy content and must not be described as externally peer reviewed.

This policy applies prospectively from its stated effective date. It does not retroactively create peer-review records or alter the historical editorial status of previously published articles.

3. Material subject to peer review

The following scholarly submissions normally undergo external peer review:

• Original research articles;
• Systematic, scoping, integrative and critical reviews;
• Methodological articles;
• Policy analyses;
• Evidence-based case studies;
• Conceptual articles;
• Research notes; and
• Invited scholarly perspectives presenting substantive academic claims.

Editorials, announcements, publisher’s notes, corrections, expressions of concern and retraction notices are normally assessed editorially and are not represented as externally peer-reviewed research articles.

4. Review model

NRJ uses double-anonymous peer review whenever practicable:

• Reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities; and
• Authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Authors must submit an anonymized manuscript that removes names, affiliations, acknowledgements and other information that directly identifies the authors.

Absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed when an author’s identity can reasonably be inferred from the subject, citations, data, institution or previous public dissemination of the work. Reviewers must not attempt to discover an author’s identity.

Reviewer identities are treated as confidential unless a reviewer expressly consents to disclosure and disclosure is permitted by the journal.

5. Editorial screening

Every submission is initially examined by an editor before external review. Screening may consider:

• Fit with the journal’s aims and scope;
• Completeness and compliance with author instructions;
• Scholarly contribution and article type;
• Originality and possible duplicate publication;
• Similarity or plagiarism-screening results;
• Authorship and contributor information;
• Research ethics approval and informed consent;
• Conflicts of interest;
• Data availability and reporting adequacy;
• AI-use disclosure;
• Language and overall readability; and
• Whether qualified independent reviewers are available.

A manuscript may be returned for technical correction or declined without external review when it is outside the journal’s scope, substantially incomplete, clearly unsuitable, legally or ethically problematic, duplicative, or below the minimum scholarly standard required for meaningful review.

Automated similarity or integrity checks do not make editorial decisions. All results must be assessed by a qualified human editor.

6. Reviewer selection and independence

Every scholarly article proceeding to external review must ordinarily be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate knowledge of the manuscript’s subject, methods or professional context.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant expertise, publication or research experience, professional qualifications, independence and ability to provide a timely and constructive assessment.

Reviewers should not be selected when they:

• Work in the same immediate department or research unit as an author;
• Have a recent supervisory, employment or close collaborative relationship with an author;
• Have a personal, financial, academic or institutional conflict affecting impartiality;
• Have participated substantially in preparing the manuscript;
• Have a direct competitive interest in the work; or
• Cannot maintain confidentiality.

Authors may identify opposed or preferred reviewers, but the journal is not obligated to follow those suggestions. Editors independently determine reviewer appointments.

When reviewer independence is uncertain, the editor must obtain another reviewer or reassign the manuscript.

7. Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewers must:

• Treat the manuscript and review materials as confidential;
• Evaluate the work fairly and within their expertise;
• Declare actual or potential conflicts of interest promptly;
• Provide specific, respectful and evidence-based comments;
• Distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
• Identify major methodological, ethical or reporting concerns;
• Alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, fabrication, duplicate publication or undisclosed conflicts;
• Avoid personal, discriminatory or defamatory comments;
• Refrain from using information obtained through review for personal advantage; and
• Submit the report within the agreed period or promptly request an extension.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly concerning a manuscript under review.

8. Confidentiality and artificial intelligence

Unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, personal information and reviewer reports are confidential editorial records.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts or substantial portions of them to publicly accessible generative-AI platforms or other services that cannot guarantee confidentiality and data protection.

Generative AI must not be used to create a reviewer’s substantive assessment or editorial decision. Reviewers and editors remain personally accountable for the accuracy, fairness and originality of their evaluation.

Approved automated tools may be used for similarity checking, reference checking or administrative support when confidentiality is protected and a human editor evaluates the results.

9. Review criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess, as applicable:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of NRJ;
• Originality and significance;
• Clarity of the research problem or objectives;
• Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
• Suitability and transparency of the methodology;
• Adequacy of sampling, instruments and analysis;
• Ethical approval, consent and participant protection;
• Accuracy and clarity of results;
• Whether conclusions are supported by the evidence;
• Treatment of limitations and alternative explanations;
• Quality and relevance of references;
• Data availability and reproducibility;
• Organization, clarity and academic writing; and
• Compliance with applicable reporting standards.

Reviewers advise the editor but do not make the final publication decision.

10. Review timeline

The journal normally asks reviewers to return their reports within 14 to 28 calendar days. Extensions may be granted when justified.

NRJ aims to provide an initial decision within six to eight weeks after a manuscript enters external review. These periods are targets rather than guarantees. Complex submissions, difficulty identifying qualified reviewers or requests for additional analysis may extend the process.

Authors must be informed of material delays.

11. Editorial decisions

After considering the independent reports, the handling editor may decide:

• Accept;
• Accept subject to minor revisions;
• Major revisions and reconsideration;
• Reject with an invitation to submit a substantially new manuscript; or
• Reject.

Acceptance requires satisfactory reviewer evaluation, resolution of essential concerns, compliance with ethical and editorial requirements and approval by the responsible editor.

When reviewer recommendations materially conflict, the editor may seek clarification, appoint a third independent reviewer or make a reasoned decision based on the evidence. Reviewer votes are not mechanically counted.

The editorial decision and anonymized reviewer comments must be communicated to the corresponding author.

12. Revisions

Authors must submit:

• A revised manuscript;
• A point-by-point response to each reviewer and editor comment; and
• A clear explanation when a recommendation was not followed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

Major revision is not a guarantee of acceptance. Additional rounds of review may be required.

13. Final acceptance

Final acceptance may be issued only after:

• The required independent reviews have been completed;
• Essential revisions have been satisfactorily addressed;
• Ethical and authorship questions have been resolved;
• Required declarations and supporting documents have been received; and
• The responsible editor has approved publication.

The acceptance date must not precede the completion of the reviews on which acceptance was based. Submission, revision, acceptance and publication dates must be recorded accurately.

14. Submissions from editors and board members

Editors, editorial-board members, reviewers and publisher-affiliated personnel may submit manuscripts, but they receive no preferential treatment.

A person who is an author or has a conflict of interest must not:

• Select the reviewers;
• Access confidential reviewer identities;
• Participate in discussion of the manuscript;
• Make the editorial decision; or
• Influence production scheduling.

Such manuscripts must be assigned to an independent editor without a relevant conflict. The article should disclose the author’s journal role and state that independent editorial handling and external peer review were used.

NRJ monitors editorial endogeny and seeks to ensure that articles authored by editors, board members or reviewers do not exceed accepted limits.

15. Special issues and guest editors

Special-issue manuscripts are subject to the same requirements as regular submissions, including editorial screening, research-integrity checks and review by at least two independent reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the entire journal. Guest editors must have appropriate qualifications, declare conflicts of interest and operate under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned board member.

A guest editor must not make decisions on their own manuscript or on manuscripts involving close collaborators. These submissions require independent editorial handling.

16. Research integrity concerns

If peer review raises concerns about plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, duplicate publication, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts or authorship manipulation, editorial processing may be suspended while the matter is examined under the journal’s publication-ethics policies.

The journal may request original data, ethics documentation, consent forms, contribution records or other evidence necessary to evaluate a concern.

No allegation alone determines the outcome. The journal must consider available evidence and give affected parties a reasonable opportunity to respond.

17. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision within 30 calendar days of receiving it. An appeal must:

• Identify the manuscript;
• Explain the specific basis of the appeal;
• Address the editor’s and reviewers’ comments; and
• Provide evidence of a material factual, procedural or ethical error.

Disagreement with a reviewer’s academic opinion, without evidence of error or unfair procedure, is not by itself sufficient.

The appeal must be assigned to an editor or committee member who was not responsible for the original decision whenever practicable. The appeal outcome is final within the journal’s internal process.

Complaints about misconduct, discrimination, confidentiality or conflicts of interest are handled under the journal’s complaints and publication-ethics procedures.

18. Reviewer misconduct and complaints

Concerns involving reviewer bias, breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts, inappropriate use of manuscript material or abusive comments should be submitted through the journal’s official contact channel.

The journal may remove inappropriate comments before sending reports to authors, seek a replacement review, discontinue using a reviewer or take other proportionate action.

19. Post-publication review

Peer review does not prevent later correction. Credible post-publication concerns will be assessed under the journal’s corrections, expressions of concern and retractions policy.

When an error affects the scholarly record, the journal may publish a linked correction, expression of concern or retraction while preserving the original record and its status transparently.

20. Editorial records and data protection

NRJ maintains secure records of:

• Manuscript submission;
• Author declarations;
• Reviewer invitations and responses;
• Conflict-of-interest declarations;
• Reviewer reports;
• Revised manuscripts;
• Author response letters;
• Editorial correspondence;
• Decisions; and
• Submission, review, acceptance and publication dates.

Records must be accurate and must not be fabricated, backdated or reconstructed as if contemporaneous. Access is limited to authorized personnel and retained in accordance with applicable legal, ethical and operational requirements.

21. Policy review and transparency

NRJ will periodically review this policy and identify its actual effective date and revision history.

Any material change to the review model applies prospectively and must be published transparently. The journal will not describe an article as peer reviewed unless the required review was genuinely completed and documented.