Introduction and Scope

Virtus International Journal of Research (VIJR) uses editorial assessment and independent peer review to evaluate research submissions for scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance. This policy applies to research manuscripts within the journal’s multidisciplinary scope, including Engineering, Technology, and Applied Sciences.

Peer review supports informed editorial decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts. Authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for maintaining the fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of the evaluation process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All research submissions undergo initial editorial screening before consideration for external peer review. The assessment considers:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope and intended scholarly readership.
• Originality and the significance of the research contribution.
• Basic methodological quality and clarity of the research objectives.
• Compliance with applicable submission and presentation requirements.
• Relevant research ethics and integrity considerations.
• Clarity, organization, and readability.
• Suitability for assessment by independent subject experts.

Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements for further consideration may be rejected without external review. Authors may be asked to address submission deficiencies before a manuscript proceeds.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Research manuscripts that pass initial screening are submitted to at least two independent experts for double-blind peer review. Under this model, reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Authors should prepare review materials so that names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and other identifying details do not unnecessarily reveal authorship. Self-citations should remain accurate and should be written neutrally.

Editors and reviewers should take reasonable steps to preserve anonymity. However, anonymity cannot be guaranteed where a manuscript’s subject, references, publicly available preprints, or other contextual information makes authorship recognizable. Reviewers who recognize or reasonably infer an author’s identity must disclose any resulting conflict of interest to the handling editor.

3. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers are selected for their relevant subject knowledge, research experience, and ability to provide an informed and impartial assessment. For interdisciplinary submissions, reviewer expertise should collectively address the principal subject areas and methods involved.

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should:

• Assess whether they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
• Disclose financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could affect their impartiality.
• Decline the invitation when a conflict prevents an objective review.
• Indicate whether they can complete the assessment within the requested period.

Editors should consider disclosed conflicts when determining whether a reviewer can participate. Reviewer identity and expertise should be checked sufficiently to support the integrity of the review process.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the nature of the research and the conventions of the relevant discipline. Their assessment should address, where applicable:

• Originality: Whether the work offers a clear and meaningful contribution.
• Research objectives: Whether the research question, rationale, and objectives are clearly defined.
• Methodological rigor: Whether the design, methods, technical procedures, and analytical approach are appropriate and adequately described.
• Evidence and analysis: Whether results are presented accurately and the analysis supports the findings.
• Interpretation: Whether conclusions are proportionate to the evidence and acknowledge relevant limitations.
• Relevance: Whether the contribution is useful to the journal’s scholarly readership.
• Ethical considerations: Whether relevant ethical issues, disclosures, or integrity concerns require editorial attention.
• Presentation: Whether the manuscript is coherent, readable, and supported by appropriate figures, tables, and references.

Review reports should be constructive, specific, and respectful. Criticism should address the work and explain the reasons for recommended changes. Requests for additional citations must have a scholarly justification.

Suspected plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, duplicate publication, or other integrity concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor. Reviewers should distinguish evidence-based concerns from unsupported allegations.

5. Editorial Decisions

The editor considers reviewer reports alongside the manuscript’s quality, relevance, ethical acceptability, and the adequacy of any revisions. Possible decisions are:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication.
• Minor revision: Limited changes are required before further consideration.
• Major revision: Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in VIJR.

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not constitute votes or guarantee a particular outcome. Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the editor authorized to handle the manuscript.

Where reports differ substantially or additional expertise is needed, further independent assessment may be sought. Decisions should be supported by clear reasons and relevant feedback for the authors.

6. Revisions and Author Responses

Authors asked to revise a manuscript should submit an amended version and a response explaining how each substantive editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed. Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a reasoned scholarly explanation.

Revised manuscripts may undergo further editorial assessment or additional peer review, depending on the extent and nature of the changes. A revision request does not guarantee acceptance.

Authors should ensure that revisions preserve the accuracy of the research record and clearly explain any material changes to the methods, results, or interpretation.

7. Review Timing

The stated period for a first editorial decision is six to eight weeks from submission. Review duration may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the need for specialist advice, and any ethical concerns requiring examination.

This period concerns the first decision rather than final acceptance or publication. Authors should not interpret the journal’s monthly publishing frequency as a guarantee that a submission will be accepted or published within a particular issue.

8. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality. An editor with a relevant conflict should not select reviewers, direct the assessment, or make the publication decision for that manuscript.

Submissions authored by an editor, or involving close collaborators or other conflicting relationships, require independent editorial handling. The same principles apply to any guest editor involved in assessing a submission.

Decisions should be based on scholarly merit, relevance, and research integrity. Personal relationships, institutional influence, and commercial considerations must not determine acceptance or rejection.

9. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and associated unpublished materials must be treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not:

• Share review materials with unauthorized individuals.
• Use unpublished findings, ideas, methods, or data for personal or professional advantage.
• Discuss confidential manuscript details outside the authorized evaluation process.
• Disclose reviewer identities in a manner inconsistent with double-blind review.

Reviewers must obtain editorial permission before involving another person in an assessment. Anyone authorized to assist must observe the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

Confidentiality does not prevent appropriately authorized examination of research integrity concerns. Any necessary disclosure should be limited to information relevant to that examination.

10. Concerns About the Review Process

Authors who identify a factual error, an apparent conflict of interest, or a material procedural concern should raise it through the journal’s official communication channel available on the VIJR website.

A request for reconsideration should identify the manuscript, explain the specific concern, and provide supporting evidence. Disagreement with an unfavorable decision should be supported by substantive reasons rather than a request for a different outcome alone.

Any reconsideration should receive impartial editorial consideration. Raising a concern does not guarantee further review, reversal of a decision, or acceptance.