Peer Review Process

The journal Research Papers of UNWE employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the confidentiality of both author and reviewer identities.

The Editorial Board strongly recommends that all reviewers read and adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

The review procedure includes the following stages:

1. Initial Screening (Desk Review)

The Editor-in-Chief or invited/guest editor conducts a preliminary evaluation of all submissions to assess the following:

  • Compliance with the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Adherence to formatting and structural guidelines.
  • Plagiarism: All manuscripts are screened using specialised detection software.
  • Anonymisation.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are returned to the authors for revision and are not sent to reviewers.

In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest (e.g., as an author/co-author of the manuscript, or through personal/professional ties to the author), the initial screening is conducted by an Editorial Board member without a conflict.

2. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned for peer review to two independent experts in the relevant field.

  • Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise.
  • Reviews are submitted using a standard form, generally within 2 weeks (extensions possible with notice to the Editorial Board).
  • Reviewers use a standardized evaluation form.

Possible outcomes:

  • Acceptance without changes;
  • Acceptance with minor revisions;
  • Major revision and resubmission for review;
  • Rejection without further consideration.

If revisions are recommended, authors should address the comments and submit the revised manuscript within ten days.

If the two reviewers' assessments differ significantly, a third reviewer will be appointed.

3. Editorial Decision

The Editorial Board makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection based on the reviewers’ reports and the paper's scientific contribution.

  • In case of rejection, authors are informed of the decision; reviewer comments are provided only if available.
  • Resubmission does not guarantee acceptance for publication.