a) Arbitration process
The process of Peer Review and accepting articles consists of two stages: first, the initial review by the editorial board of the journal, and after that - if approved by the editorial board - expert Peer Review by scientific referees. The refereeing of articles in the Great Khorasan Research Journal or is double-blind [authors can propose two expert referees during the registration of the article, but the journal is free to choose the referees proposed by the author, and in any case, the names of the referees chosen by the journal will not be known to the author]. In the Peer Review process, the article is first Peer Reviewed by two expert referees in the relevant field, and if both referees approve at this stage, the article will be accepted. Equal votes of two referees are required to determine the assignment of the article. If two reviewers disagree about the acceptance of the article (one reviewer approves the article and the other reviewer rejects the article), the article is sent to a third reviewer. Before sending to the third reviewer, the author is asked to apply the revision comments of the previous two reviewers to the article, and then the revised version is sent to the third reviewer. The opinion of the third referee determines the acceptance or rejection of the article. The article can be published after the approval of two referees and the final approval of the editorial board.
The opinion of the Reviewers about the article is expressed in one of the following four ways:
1. Acceptable in its current form
2. Acceptable after minor modifications
3. Acceptable after making general and structural changes and re-reviewing by the referee (in this case, after the corrections have been made by the author, the article will be referred to the relevant referee again for an opinion, if approved by the referee, the article will be published is appropriate and if the corrections are not done correctly and the referee announces a general revision again, the article will be rejected).
Note: In cases where the author does not accept the referee's opinion on all or part of the proposed amendments or has a convincing answer to the objections to the article, he can write his opinions and reasons in a text entitled "Response to the referees" on his personal page on the site. The publication should announce in the section of adding files to the publication's office. The said answer will be reviewed by the editorial board and referees of the article and the result will be notified to the author.
Review and response process
Once your paper is returned to you from the referees, you may be given the opportunity to revise it according to the corrective comments. For this purpose, you will usually receive a letter from the editor in which the changes that the reviewers are considering will be sent to you. This letter usually contains information about how to return your revised paper, such as "specifying the changes made to the paper as per the reviewers' opinion" and "a window of time to return the revised version".
Note: The articles returned to the authors by Great Khorasan Research Journal have different revision deadlines, which vary from a few weeks to a maximum of three months, depending on the revisions that need to be made. If you do not think you will be able to upload the revised version to the journal site in the allotted time, notify the editor immediately. They should be able to offer you an extension, but it's best to contact them as soon as possible.
When reviewing an article that has received preliminary approval and responding to the comments of the MOCDA reviewers, we suggest that you consider the following:
Thank the reviewers and editors for their time and comments.
Pay attention to all the points raised by the editor and reviewers.
If the article needs general corrections, outline the items after those corrections have been made. If the corrections were case-by-case; Do them and report it case by case (leave a comment).
Make the corrections within the points recommended by the reviewers (unless you feel that their proposed corrections will not help to improve the quality of your paper. If so, please explain your scientific arguments - even in documentation - and adequately.)
Present any point or opinion presented by the referees that you disagree with in a polite and scientific manner. Remember that if your article is submitted a second time for review by referees, the referees will see this content again.
Clearly indicate major text edits, either with different color text, by highlighting changes, or with the Track Changes feature in Microsoft Word software. This is in addition to describing the point-by-point changes (commentable) in making the corrections made by you.
Return the corrected article to the attachment of a letter to respond to corrections within the time frame set by the journal and only through the journal's website.
Below is an example of how to respond to a reviewer's comment:
Reviewer's Comment: In your analysis of the data, you have chosen to use a somewhat fuzzy fitting function (regression). In my opinion, non-parametric Friedman test is better. In addition, the results will be more informative and easier to compare with previous results.
A) Answer in agreement with the referee: We agree with the referee's assessment of the analysis method. Because in using the regression method, the results seemed to be relatively less generalizable. Furthermore, in its current form, we agree that it is difficult to say whether this measure is a significant improvement over previously reported values. Therefore, in the new revision, we have reanalyzed the data using the Friedman test.
b) Answer against the reviewer's opinion: We agree with the reviewer that using Friedman's non-parametric test can facilitate the results of such studies. However, the data of this research has made it more justifiable for us to analyze the data based on the regression model according to the study of Smith et al., 1998. To explain the use of this test and Smith's model, we have added two sentences to the article (page 3, paragraph 2).
Note that in both comments (for and against) the author is polite and respects the referee's opinion. Also, in both situations, the author makes a change to the revised paper that answers the reviewer's question.
The author's protest and complaint process
Authors have the right to complain and ask for an explanation if they see any violation in any of the policies and ethical guidelines of the journal, and they can raise their complaints by sending a letter to one of the addresses below.
All complaints related to violations in the article review process are investigated in accordance with the ethical practices of public publishing.
Objectionable issues and complaints
An author or any other researcher can submit their complaints on any matter related to the following:
- Copyright infringement
- Deception in research results or false research results
- Violation of the standard set for research
- Hidden conflict of interests
- Bias in the review process
- The time of the article review process has been unusually long
- The comments of the peer review process are not satisfactory
- Writing issues
Complaint handling policy
Upon receipt of a complaint request, a letter of complaint receipt is initially sent to the complainant to ensure that actions related to the complaint will be taken within three working days excluding the date of receipt of the complaint. The research process is started by the management team of the journal according to the instructions of the editor. After the end of the investigation, a meeting will be held with a full report of the complaint and the decision will be sent to the relevant investigator through the e-mail ID sent by the complainant.
- If the initial response is felt to be insufficient, the complainant can request that their complaint be referred to a senior member of the investigation team.
- If the complainant remains unsatisfied, complaints may be referred to a journal editor whose decision is final.
- If the complainant is still dissatisfied with the editor's final response, the complainant may file a complaint with an external body.
Complaints that are not under the supervision of the editorial board of Islamic Art Studies Publications are sent to the respective heads of Islamic Art Studies Publications.
We see complaints as an opportunity to strengthen the existing article review system. All complaints received are dealt with reliably and in a timely manner.