Peer Review Policy

All research and review papers in the World Review of Research and Innovation (WRRI) are evaluated through double-anonymous peer review.

Purpose

Review by independent experts tests whether a paper is original, relevant, methodologically sound, clearly argued and ethically conducted. It also helps authors strengthen their work before publication.

Editorial Screening

Every submission is first read by the editors, who check:

• whether it falls within WRRI's aims and scope;
• whether it offers an original contribution;
• the basic quality of its design and argument;
• whether it follows the submission requirements;
• any ethical issues;
• the similarity report; and
• whether it is ready to be sent to reviewers.

Papers that are out of scope, ethically unsound or not ready for review may be declined at this stage.

Anonymity

Reviewers do not know the authors' identities and authors do not know the reviewers'. Authors must therefore remove names, affiliations and other identifying details from the manuscript and its files, and reviewers must not identify themselves.

Reviewer Selection

Each paper that passes screening is sent to a minimum of two independent reviewers selected for their subject knowledge, research record and freedom from conflicts. A further reviewer may be invited if reports conflict or specialist expertise is required.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

• Assess the work objectively, constructively and in a scholarly manner.
• Form an independent and fair judgement.
• Treat everything they receive as confidential.
• Identify conceptual, methodological, ethical or scholarly weaknesses.
• Point out significant relevant literature that has been missed.
• Declare any conflict of interest.
• Submit their report on time, or request an extension early.

Reviewers may not use or disclose any unpublished information they learn from a manuscript.

Possible Decisions

• Accept;
• Minor revision;
• Major revision (revise and resubmit); or
• Reject.

Reviewers advise; the authorised editors decide, taking account of the reports and of journal policy.

Revised Papers

Authors return a revised paper together with a point-by-point reply to the reviewers. Depending on the extent of the changes, the revision is checked by the original reviewers or by the handling editor.

Conflicts

A reviewer with a conflict that could affect impartiality must declare it and may be replaced.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, review reports and editorial correspondence may not be shared with anyone outside the process without the journal's permission.

AI Tools

Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript to generative AI or other external services that could compromise confidentiality. See the AI Policy.

Independence

Review outcomes are free from commercial, advertising or sponsorship influence. Paying the APC never guarantees acceptance.

Appeals

An author who believes a decision was wrong may appeal under the Complaints and Appeals Policy, giving specific reasons.

Records

WRRI keeps a record of the review of every manuscript, in line with its ethics and record-keeping practice.

Protecting the Process

The journal takes action where there is evidence of reviewer misconduct, manipulated review, hidden conflicts or other breaches of ethics.

Review model	Double-anonymous
Minimum reviewers	Two independent experts
Contact	editor@wrri.ibexinstitute.org