The Process of Review, Acceptance, and Publication of Articles in the Journal of Greater Khorasan
Review Process
The Journal of Greater Khorasan is committed to double-blind peer review in its review process, based on the guidelines of the International Committee on Publication Ethics. This means that authors and reviewers do not have any information about each other's identity.
Submitted articles are evaluated in two stages: first, the editor-in-chief reviews the article for its compliance with the "scope and subject area" of the journal; if there is a lack of compliance with the research structure, text, or content standards of the journal, a letter of rejection (rejecting the article) is sent to the author.
Upon initial approval, the article is first sent to 2 expert reviewers in the relevant field; in cases of disagreement between reviewers (one reviewer approves the article and another rejects it, and the two reviewers do not agree on acceptance of the article), the article is sent to a third reviewer; the final acceptance or rejection decision is made by the third reviewer or the editorial team;
After the article is sent for review, the result of the review should be communicated to the authors in one of the following four forms:
* Acceptable in its current form
* Acceptable after minor revisions
* Acceptable after major structural changes and re-review by the reviewer (in this case, after the author makes the revisions, the article will be referred back to the relevant reviewer for feedback, if the reviewer approves, the article will be suitable for publication, and if the revisions are not done properly and the reviewer requests a major review, the article will be rejected (a letter of rejection will be sent)
* Not acceptable.
Note: In cases where the author does not accept the reviewer's comments on all or part of the proposed revisions, or has convincing responses to the criticisms made in the article, they can submit their opinions and reasons in a text entitled "Response to Reviewers" on their personal page on the journal's website, in the section of adding files to the journal's office. The mentioned response will be reviewed by the editorial board and reviewers of the article, and the result will be communicated to the author.
Authors whose articles need to be revised must make the necessary corrections within 15 days and submit the revised version of the article. If the corrections are approved by the reviewer and the editorial board, an initial acceptance will be issued for the authors
Article Revision Process
For an article that needs partial or full revision, the editor will send the reviewers' comments to the author through a letter. This letter contains information regarding "how to specify the revisions made according to the reviewers' comments," "how to upload the revised article," and "the timeframe for revisions."
Note: The deadlines for revisions, depending on the extent of the revision required, vary from 15 days to a maximum of three months. If you think you cannot upload the revised version within the specified time on the journal's website, inform the editor so that they can consider an extension for you.
During the article revision phase, which is in the stage of responding to the reviewers' comments, we recommend considering the following:
*Thank the critics and editors for their time and feedback.
*Pay attention to all the points raised by the editors and reviewers.
*Make notes for all the revisions you make (leave comments).
*Make revisions within the framework of the recommendations made by the reviewers (unless you explain with scientific reasoning or evidence that the proposed revisions do not contribute to improving the quality of your article).
*Respond politely and scientifically to any point or opinion presented by the reviewers with which you disagree. Remember that if your article is submitted for review by the reviewers for the second time, they will review these matters again.
*Clearly indicate the revisions made in the text with a different color, highlighting the changes, or using the Track Changes feature in Microsoft Word software.
*Upload the revised article along with the necessary explanations within the specified timeframe and solely on the journal's system.
Process of Complaint and Appeal
If authors disagree with the decision of the editorial board regarding their article, they have the right to appeal. Authors can send their appeal request via email to the editor-in-chief at jgk.edc@imamreza.ac.ir.
Furthermore, authors should report any violations of the journal's ethical policies and guidelines, including:
- Plagiarism
- Violation of copyright
- Deception in research results or incorrect research findings
- Violation of set standards for research
- Hidden conflicts of interest
- Bias in the review process
- Unusually long review process for the article
- Dissatisfaction with peer review comments
- Issues related to authorship
The right to complain and request clarification is available, and individuals can address it by sending an email to jgk.edc@imamreza.ac.ir.
Complaint Handling and Appeal Policy
All requests will be addressed within three working days. Initially, to ensure that the author receives the complaint raised, a letter acknowledging the receipt of the complaint will be sent to the author by the journal office, excluding the complaint receipt date, within three working days.
The investigation process is initiated by a team of the journal's scientific members in accordance with the guidelines of the editor-in-chief. After the completion of the investigations, a comprehensive report will be presented to the managing director and editor-in-chief, and the final decision will be communicated to the complainant via email.
If the complainant finds the initial response insufficient, they may request direct review and response by the editor-in-chief.
In such cases, the article, reviewers' comments, and the editorial board's opinions will be reviewed, and a summary of the opinions regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article will be announced. If necessary, the article will be returned to the author for further revisions or sent to a new reviewer for reassessment. Ultimately, the final decision maker in these matters will be the journal's editor-in-chief.
If the complainant remains dissatisfied even after considering the editor-in-chief's final response, they may lodge a complaint with an external body outside the university. Complaints not under the supervision of the editorial board will be followed up and addressed through the research deputy's office.
In cases where complaints are related to the non-observance of policies and ethical guidelines, these matters will be handled according to the guidelines outlined in the "Publication Ethics Principles."
Phases of Article Publication:
In the first step, accepted articles are listed in the ready-to-publish articles list.
In the second phase, the ready-to-publish articles are categorized and will be published in one of the issues of spring, summer, fall, or winter.
In the third step, the article is sent for scientific and literary editing. At this stage, authors may also be asked to make minor changes to the article.
In the fourth step, after addressing the editing errors, the files are sent for formatting and preparation for publication.
In the final step, with the approval of the editor-in-chief, the finalized articles are published on the website of Greater Khorasan journal.