UAR Publisher

Menu

Peer Review & Editorial Policy

Clear process. Relentless integrity. Open to scrutiny.

Our Promise

We commit to fair, timely, and transparent editorial decisions guided by scholarly merit, ethical standards, and best practices (COPE principles). Editorial independence is protected: editors decide on content without commercial interference.

Review Model(s)

This section outlines the different types of peer review we use and when they are applied.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The default model. Both authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other to ensure unbiased evaluation.

Single-Blind or Open Review

May be used for special cases. Authors are informed and consent is obtained from reviewers for transparency.

Rapid Editorial Review

Expedited review for brief articles like editorials, conducted by editors without external referees.

Reviewer selection criteria

  • Demonstrable expertise via publications and institutional affiliation.
  • No recent co-authorship or close collaboration with any author (last 3 years).
  • No geographic or institutional exclusion unless justified.
  • Balanced representation when possible (gender, geography, career stage).
  • Suggested reviewers by authors are considered but not guaranteed; editors may decline suggestions for conflicts.

Conflicts of interest (reviewers & editors)

  • Reviewers and editors must declare conflicts before accepting an assignment (financial, personal, competitive).
  • If a conflict exists, the person must decline; editors will appoint an alternative.
  • Authors must declare conflicts in submissions; declared conflicts are published on article landing pages.

Reviewer responsibilities & conduct

Reviewers should:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely reports.
  • Evaluate significance, originality, methodology, ethics, and clarity.
  • Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and not use information for personal gain.
  • Disclose conflicts and decline if unqualified.
  • Use the publisher’s review form/template for consistency.

Review tone: professional, respectful, evidence-based.

Editorial responsibilities

Editors will:

  • Assign appropriate reviewers and arbitrate conflicting reports.
  • Make decisions based on scholarly merit, ethical compliance, and reviewer advice.
  • Ensure confidentiality and protect whistleblowers.
  • Recuse themselves when conflicted and appoint a deputy editor.
  • Keep turnaround times reasonable and communicate delays.

Transparency for indexers & readers

For each published article we will display a peer review statement (example below) and, where possible, dates of receipt, revision(s) and acceptance. If reviewer reports are published (open review), links or full reports will appear on the article page. This transparency supports indexing and trust.

Example peer review statement (copy-paste):

“Peer review: This article underwent double-blind peer review. Dates — received: YYYY-MM-DD; revised: YYYY-MM-DD; accepted: YYYY-MM-DD.”

Manuscript Journey Timeline
Peer Review Workflow
1

Initial Editorial Check

Manuscript is screened for scope, plagiarism, ethics, and completeness of metadata. (0-2 days)

2

Assignment to Handling Editor

An editor with subject expertise is assigned to manage the review process.

3

Reviewer Selection

2-3 independent experts are invited based on specific criteria.

4

Review Period

Reviewers are given 0-6 days to submit their reports, depending on the field.

5

Editorial Synthesis & Decision

The handling editor evaluates reports and makes a decision: revise, accept, or reject.

6

Revision Rounds

Authors provide a point-by-point reply to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript.

7

Final Decision & Production

Upon acceptance, the article enters production for proofing, DOI assignment, and publication.

Reviewer recognition & incentives

  • Reviewers receive formal acknowledgement (annual list of reviewers, unless they opt out).
  • Editors may offer certificates, discounts on APCs (if applicable), and ORCID-linked reviewer recognition.

Record keeping & privacy

We retain review records, reviewer identities, decision history and communications for an appropriate period (minimum 7 years) for audit. Personal data are stored per applicable privacy rules and disclosed only when required by law or ethics investigations.

Handling misconduct & appeals

  • Misconduct detection: We screen submissions with plagiarism tools and investigate allegations of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research conduct per COPE flowcharts.
  • Investigation: The handling editor, Editor-in-Chief and a small ethics committee evaluate evidence. If credible, we contact authors and institutions.
  • Sanctions: Range from correction, retraction, to ban from future submissions depending on severity. All corrective notices follow COPE guidelines and are public.
  • Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal appeal to editorial@uarpublisher.com within 7 days of decision; appeals are reviewed by an independent senior editor not involved in the original decision.

We steward knowledge with respect and rigour. Our peer review is not theatre — it is a structured, auditable practice designed so that each published piece can stand up to scrutiny, be discovered by indexers, and be useful to readers for generations to come.

Scroll to Top