Peer review process at IgMin Research

Introduction

The peer review process, an integral part of scholarly publishing, ensures the credibility and quality of scientific research before it reaches the broader academic community and the public. IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal recognizes the significance of this process and is dedicated to establishing a robust and transparent peer review system. This commitment stems from the understanding that peer review plays a pivotal role in shaping the scientific discourse, advancing knowledge, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration.

Submission and Preliminary Review

The submission and preliminary review stage marks the initiation of the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. Authors submit their research manuscripts to the journal's editorial team for evaluation and potential publication. This crucial step sets the foundation for the entire peer review process, determining which manuscripts proceed for expert peer evaluation and which ones require revisions or face rejection.

Elaboration of the process

1. Author submission: Researchers who wish to publish their work in IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal submit their research manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Authors are required to adhere to the journal's submission guidelines, which include formatting requirements, word limits, citation styles, and ethical considerations.
2. Initial manuscript review: The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to ensure that the submission meets the journal's criteria for consideration. During this review, the editorial staff checks whether the manuscript conforms to the specified format and adheres to ethical standards, such as proper citation and declaration of conflicts of interest.
3. Plagiarism check: To maintain academic integrity, the journal performs a thorough plagiarism check on all submissions. Authors are expected to provide original work and appropriately cite prior research. Any instances of plagiarism or improper use of sources are addressed, and authors are notified to revise their submissions accordingly.
4. Ethical considerations: The editorial team evaluates the manuscript for ethical compliance, ensuring that research involving human or animal subjects adheres to ethical guidelines. Authors are required to provide appropriate ethical clearance, informed consent, and adherence to institutional review board (IRB) approvals, where applicable.
5. Alignment with journal scope: Manuscripts that align with the journal's scope and thematic focus are considered for further evaluation. IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal aims to publish research that spans diverse scientific fields within the broad spectrum of STEM.
6. Feedback to authors: Based on the initial review, the editorial team provides timely feedback to the authors. If the manuscript meets all the criteria, it proceeds to the next stage of expert peer evaluation. However, manuscripts that do not meet specific requirements or need improvements are returned to the authors with constructive feedback and suggestions for enhancement.
7. Revisions and resubmission: If the manuscript requires revisions, authors are encouraged to address the feedback provided by the editorial team. Authors have the opportunity to revise their work to meet the journal's requirements and enhance the quality of their submission. The revised manuscript may then be resubmitted for further evaluation.
8. Rejection: In some cases, manuscripts may not align with the journal's scope or fail to meet the necessary quality standards. These manuscripts may be rejected at the preliminary review stage, and authors are notified of the decision with explanations for the rejection.

Importance of the preliminary review

The preliminary review is a crucial step in the peer review process for IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. This stage ensures that all submissions meet the journal's publication standards, adhere to ethical considerations, and align with the journal's thematic focus. By conducting an initial review, the journal streamlines the peer review process, reducing the burden on expert reviewers and increasing the efficiency of manuscript handling.

Furthermore, the preliminary review emphasizes the journal's commitment to academic integrity and ethical conduct. It safeguards against potential issues such as plagiarism, inappropriate data handling, or lack of proper ethical clearance for human or animal studies. By upholding these ethical principles, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal reinforces its reputation as a credible and trustworthy platform for publishing cutting-edge research.

The feedback provided to authors during the preliminary review stage also highlights the journal's dedication to assisting authors in enhancing their work. Authors receive valuable insights and guidance on how to improve their manuscripts before they proceed to expert peer evaluation. This constructive feedback contributes to the overall improvement of research quality and scholarly communication.

In conclusion, the submission and preliminary review stage is a crucial initial step in the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. It serves as a gatekeeping mechanism, ensuring that only high-quality and ethically sound manuscripts proceed to the next stage of expert peer evaluation. By adhering to strict evaluation criteria and providing constructive feedback to authors, the journal sets the foundation for maintaining scientific integrity and fostering excellence in research dissemination.

Expert Peer Evaluation

The second stage of the peer review process in IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal involves expert peer evaluation, where independent subject matter experts, also known as reviewers or peers, assess the submitted manuscript. This stage is at the heart of the peer review process, as it brings together the expertise and insights of renowned researchers and scholars to critically evaluate the scientific merit, methodology, and overall contribution of the research to the field.

Elaboration of the expert peer evaluation process

1. Reviewer selection: The reviewer selection process is a critical aspect of ensuring a comprehensive and unbiased assessment of the manuscript. The editorial team carefully chooses reviewers who have expertise in the specific field or subfield covered by the manuscript. These reviewers are selected based on their academic credentials, publication record, and research experience, among other factors.
2. Invitation and acceptance: Once potential reviewers are identified, they are formally invited by the editorial team to review the manuscript. The invitation includes a clear explanation of the journal's expectations for the review, the timeline for completion, and the importance of maintaining confidentiality during the process. Reviewers may accept, decline, or suggest alternative experts if they feel they lack the necessary expertise or have potential conflicts of interest.
3. Review guidelines and criteria: Reviewers are provided with specific guidelines and evaluation criteria to ensure consistency in their assessments. These guidelines may include instructions on evaluating the originality, significance, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical standards of the research. The review criteria are aligned with the journal's mission and scope, enabling reviewers to focus on the aspects most relevant to the journal's objectives.
4. Confidentiality and anonymity: Confidentiality is strictly maintained throughout the peer review process. Reviewers are reminded of the importance of not disclosing any details of the manuscript or their review to unauthorized parties. The double-blind review system ensures the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, protecting the integrity of the evaluation process. The identity of the authors remains unknown to the reviewers, and vice versa, eliminating potential biases and ensuring an unbiased assessment.
5. Evaluation process: Reviewers diligently evaluate the manuscript to determine its scientific merit and suitability for publication in IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. They assess the research design, methodology, data analysis, results, and interpretations to identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require improvement.
6. Originality and significance: Reviewers assess the originality and significance of the research. They evaluate whether the research addresses novel questions, presents innovative findings, and contributes substantially to the existing body of knowledge. The potential impact of the research on the field and its broader implications are also considered.
7. Methodological rigor: Methodological rigor is a key focus of the evaluation process. Reviewers assess the appropriateness of the research design and methodology, ensuring that the study's approach is robust and suitable for answering the research question. They check whether the data collection and analysis methods are appropriate and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.
8. Clarity and coherence: The reviewers evaluate the clarity and coherence of the manuscript's presentation. They assess whether the research findings are effectively communicated, whether the writing is clear and concise, and whether the manuscript adheres to the journal's formatting and style guidelines. The organization of the manuscript and the use of visuals, tables, and figures are also considered.
9. Ethical considerations: Ethical integrity is of utmost importance in scientific research. Reviewers pay close attention to ethical considerations, such as the proper handling of human and animal subjects, the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, and the adherence to relevant research guidelines and regulations. They ensure that the authors have properly obtained informed consent, maintained participant confidentiality, and avoided any unethical practices, such as plagiarism or data fabrication.
10. Timely completion: Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within a specified timeframe to ensure timely processing of the manuscript. Their timely and diligent efforts are crucial in maintaining the efficiency of the peer review process and providing authors with prompt feedback.
11. Reviewer recommendations: Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations to the editorial team. Their recommendations fall into several categories, including acceptance without revisions, acceptance with minor revisions, major revisions and resubmission, or rejection. Reviewers provide specific justifications for their recommendations, citing strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.
12. Constructive feedback: Reviewers aim to provide constructive feedback that helps authors enhance the quality and impact of their research. Their feedback is intended to support authors in refining their work, strengthening their arguments, and addressing any identified deficiencies.
13. Author-reviewer interaction: In some cases, authors may have the opportunity to respond to the reviewers' comments and clarify any issues raised. This interaction allows authors to address reviewer concerns directly, providing additional context or data to support their findings.
14. Editorial decision: The final decision on the manuscript's publication is made by the editorial team, taking into consideration the reviewers' evaluations and the authors' responses, if applicable. The editorial decision aims to ensure that only high-quality, scientifically sound, and impactful research is published in IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal.

In conclusion, the expert peer evaluation process in IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal is a thorough, objective, and crucial step in ensuring the quality, originality, and significance of the research published in the journal. Through the meticulous selection of reviewers, clear evaluation criteria, confidentiality measures, and constructive feedback, the peer review process serves as the foundation of the journal's commitment to advancing knowledge and promoting excellence in diverse scientific disciplines.

Anonymity and Blind Review

The third point in the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal focuses on the crucial practice of anonymity and blind review. This aspect is fundamental to promoting objectivity, fairness, and integrity throughout the evaluation process. Anonymity ensures that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential, preventing potential biases and safeguarding the integrity of the peer review process.

Elaboration of the blind review process

1. Anonymous manuscript submission: Authors submit their research manuscripts to IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal without revealing their identities to the reviewers. The submission system is designed in such a way that any personal information or affiliations that could identify the authors are removed from the manuscript. This ensures that the reviewers evaluate the research purely based on its scientific merit and not on the reputation or institutional background of the authors.
2. Reviewer selection and confidentiality: Once the manuscript undergoes a preliminary review for adherence to submission guidelines and ethical standards, the editorial team selects independent subject matter experts as reviewers. The reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and experience in the relevant field of study. At this stage, the anonymity also extends to the reviewers, and their identities are kept confidential from the authors.
3. Reviewing the manuscript: Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript without any information that could reveal the authors' identities. This practice ensures that the focus remains solely on the scientific content of the research rather than personal attributes or affiliations. Reviewers are encouraged to provide unbiased and objective evaluations based solely on the quality of the research, its methodology, and its potential contribution to the scientific community.
4. Evaluating without bias: Blind review eliminates the possibility of reviewer bias, as reviewers are not influenced by the authors' gender, nationality, institutional prestige, or prior collaborations. This unbiased assessment enhances the credibility and fairness of the peer review process, promoting the selection of high-quality research based on its intrinsic value.
5. Maintaining confidentiality during communication: Throughout the review process, communication between authors and reviewers is managed by the journal's editorial team to maintain confidentiality. Authors are not aware of the identities of the reviewers, and vice versa. This separation fosters an environment where reviewers feel comfortable providing candid and impartial feedback, without concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
6. Promoting equitable consideration: Anonymity ensures equitable consideration of all submissions, irrespective of the authors' backgrounds or affiliations. The blind review process is particularly crucial for a multidisciplinary journal like IgMin Research, which welcomes contributions from diverse research communities. The practice of anonymity fosters inclusivity and encourages authors from various academic backgrounds to submit their work.
7. Reviewer anonymity encourages open critique: The anonymity of the reviewers also benefits the authors by encouraging open critique and constructive feedback. Authors can receive honest and transparent assessments of their research, leading to improvements and advancements in their work.
8. Reducing potential conflicts of interest: Anonymity minimizes the risk of potential conflicts of interest that may arise if reviewers and authors have prior personal or professional connections. This separation enhances the credibility and impartiality of the review process, as it eliminates any undue influence on the evaluation.

In summary, the practice of anonymity and blind review is a cornerstone of the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. By keeping the identities of both authors and reviewers confidential, the journal ensures an objective and fair evaluation of the research, upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and fostering an environment where scholarly merit prevails over personal considerations. The blind review process at IgMin Research helps maintain the journal's reputation for publishing high-quality, diverse, and impactful research from various disciplines within the STEM fields.

Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria in the peer review process are the specific guidelines and standards that reviewers use to assess the scientific quality, originality, and significance of the submitted manuscripts. These criteria form the foundation for a thorough and objective evaluation, guiding reviewers to provide constructive feedback and make well-informed recommendations to the editorial board.

Point-by-point elaboration of the evaluation criteria

1. Originality and innovation: Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality and innovation by examining the research question's novelty and the unique contributions it offers to the existing body of knowledge. They consider whether the study introduces fresh perspectives, challenges prevailing theories, or presents groundbreaking findings. A manuscript that demonstrates originality and innovative thinking is more likely to make significant contributions to the scientific field and attract interest from readers and researchers.
2. Significance and relevance: The reviewers evaluate the manuscript's significance and relevance to the scientific community and society at large. They determine whether the research addresses important issues, provides valuable insights, or has potential practical applications. Manuscripts that contribute to addressing pressing problems, informing policy decisions, or advancing technology are considered highly significant. The relevance of the research to the multidisciplinary scope of IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal is also considered.
3. Methodological soundness: The research methodology undergoes meticulous scrutiny. Reviewers assess whether the study's design, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques are appropriate and well-executed. They examine the reliability and validity of the data and the overall robustness of the research design. A well-structured and scientifically sound methodology ensures that the findings are credible and the conclusions drawn are justified.
4. Clarity and coherence: Reviewers carefully analyze the manuscript's clarity and coherence of presentation. They assess whether the research is effectively communicated, with clear and well-structured writing. A coherent presentation allows readers to follow the research flow easily, comprehend the key findings, and understand the implications of the study. The use of appropriate visuals, figures, and tables to support the text is also considered.
5. Ethical considerations: Ethical integrity is of paramount importance in scientific research. Reviewers ensure that authors have adhered to ethical guidelines throughout their study. They check for the proper handling of data, adherence to ethical clearance for human and animal studies, and appropriate citation and acknowledgment of sources. Manuscripts with ethical issues may receive recommendations for revisions or face potential rejection.
6. References and literature review: Reviewers assess the adequacy of the references cited in the manuscript and the comprehensiveness of the literature review. They evaluate whether authors have appropriately cited prior relevant research and acknowledged existing contributions to the field. A well-researched and comprehensive literature review demonstrates the authors' familiarity with the relevant literature and positions their work within the broader scholarly context.
7. Statistical analysis and interpretation: Reviewers critically evaluate the statistical analysis employed in the study. They assess whether the methods used are appropriate for the research question, whether the data have been analyzed accurately, and whether the interpretation of results is justified. A thorough statistical analysis ensures that the findings are robust and that the conclusions drawn from the data are reliable.
8. Reproducibility and data availability: Transparency and reproducibility are essential in scientific research. Reviewers may consider whether authors have made their data and methods openly available to facilitate replication and further investigation. The availability of data allows other researchers to validate and build upon the findings, enhancing the overall impact of the research.
9. Use of multidisciplinary approaches: Given the multidisciplinary scope of IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal, reviewers consider the extent to which the manuscript incorporates multiple perspectives and approaches from diverse scientific fields. Manuscripts that embrace interdisciplinarity and demonstrate the integration of knowledge from different domains are highly valued for their potential to drive cross-disciplinary innovation.
10. Grammar, language, and writing quality: While not the primary focus of the evaluation, reviewers may provide feedback on the manuscript's grammar, language, and writing quality. Clarity in language and writing enhances the manuscript's readability and accessibility to a broader audience.

By adhering to these evaluation criteria, reviewers ensure that manuscripts published in IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal meet high scientific standards and contribute significantly to advancing knowledge across diverse fields.

Reviewer Recommendations

The Reviewer Recommendations stage is a pivotal part of the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. After the expert peer evaluation, where independent subject matter experts thoroughly assess the manuscript, reviewers provide their recommendations to the editorial board based on their evaluation. This step involves a careful consideration of the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution to the scientific field. The reviewer recommendations serve as crucial guidance for the editorial board in making informed decisions about the suitability of the manuscript for publication.

Elaboration of the reviewer recommendations process

1. Comprehensive evaluation: Reviewers meticulously assess the manuscript, evaluating various aspects such as the research's originality, significance, methodology, data analysis, presentation, and adherence to ethical guidelines. They consider the manuscript's potential impact on the scientific community and its relevance to the journal's multidisciplinary scope.
2. Objective assessment: Reviewers provide an objective evaluation, considering the research's scientific merit without any bias towards the authors' identity or affiliations. Anonymity in the double-blind review process ensures that reviewers focus solely on the research's content and quality, promoting fairness and impartiality.
3. Constructive feedback: Reviewers offer constructive feedback to authors, highlighting the manuscript's strengths and pointing out areas that require improvement. Their feedback is specific and actionable, aimed at helping authors enhance the clarity, rigor, and overall impact of their research.
4. Recommendation categories: Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide recommendations that fall into distinct categories:
   1. Acceptance without revisions: If the manuscript is of exceptional quality, meeting all the journal's criteria for publication, reviewers may recommend acceptance without the need for any revisions.
   2. Acceptance with minor revisions: Manuscripts that show promise but require minor improvements or clarifications may be recommended for acceptance with minor revisions. Reviewers specify the changes needed to enhance the manuscript's clarity and coherence.
   3. Major revisions and resubmission: If the manuscript exhibits potential but requires significant revisions or additional validation to address major concerns raised by the reviewers, a recommendation for major revisions and resubmission is made. In such cases, reviewers provide detailed explanations of the revisions they expect.
   4. Rejection: Manuscripts that do not meet the necessary scientific rigor, lack originality, or do not align with the journal's scope may be recommended for rejection. Reviewers substantiate their recommendation with specific reasons and concerns.
5. Communication with authors: Reviewers' feedback and recommendations are communicated to the authors through the journal's editorial management system. Authors receive the anonymous feedback, including the reviewers' comments, critiques, and recommendations for improvement.
6. Response from authors: Authors are expected to respond thoughtfully to the reviewers' comments and suggestions. In their revisions, authors address each of the reviewers' concerns and provide clear explanations or additional data to support their changes.
7. Revision assessment: After authors have made their revisions, the manuscript re-enters the peer review process. The revised version, along with the authors' response letter addressing the reviewers' comments, is sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
8. Reviewer reassessment: Reviewers reevaluate the revised manuscript to assess whether the authors adequately addressed their previous concerns. Reviewers assess the quality of the revisions, the validity of additional data, and whether the manuscript now meets the journal's standards for publication.
9. Revised recommendation: Based on the authors' revisions, the original reviewers may alter their recommendation category. If the revisions adequately address their concerns, reviewers may recommend acceptance or acceptance with minor revisions. If further improvements are needed, they may reiterate their recommendation for major revisions and resubmission.
10. Final decision: The editorial board, led by the Editor-in-Chief, makes the final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript. The board considers the reviewers' re-evaluation, the authors' revisions, and the manuscript's overall alignment with the journal's scope and standards. The decision-making process ensures a fair and rigorous evaluation of the research.
11. Feedback to authors: Authors are notified of the editorial decision, along with a summary of the reviewers' feedback. If accepted, authors are provided with instructions for finalizing the manuscript for publication. If revisions are required, authors receive specific instructions from the editorial team to address the remaining concerns.

The Reviewer Recommendations process is an essential aspect of IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal's peer review process. It enables the journal to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity, promote rigorous scholarship, and ensure that only high-quality, impactful research is disseminated to the scientific community. Through objective evaluations, constructive feedback, and transparent communication, the reviewer recommendations stage facilitates the advancement of knowledge across diverse scientific disciplines within the journal's multidisciplinary scope.

Author Feedback and Revisions

The Author Feedback and Revisions stage is a crucial part of the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. After receiving feedback from the expert peer reviewers, authors are provided with an opportunity to address the comments, suggestions, and critiques offered by the reviewers in their evaluations. This stage is a collaborative and iterative process, aimed at improving the quality, clarity, and impact of the research before final publication.

Elaboration

1. Reviewers' feedback compilation: Upon completion of the peer review process, the editorial team compiles the reviewers' comments and feedback into a comprehensive report. This report is sent to the authors, ensuring they receive a clear understanding of the reviewers' assessments of their work.
2. Constructive and clear feedback: Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback that highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. The feedback may include suggestions for clarifications, improvements in the methodology, additional data required, or insights on the significance of the findings.
3. Response letter preparation: In response to the reviewers' feedback, authors are required to prepare a detailed response letter. This letter serves as a formal document where authors address each of the reviewers' comments individually and explain the changes they have made or their reasons for not incorporating specific suggestions.
4. Revisions based on feedback: Authors carefully consider the reviewers' comments and suggestions and undertake necessary revisions to address the identified concerns. They may adjust the research design, reanalyze data, strengthen the argumentation, and improve the manuscript's clarity and coherence.
5. Importance of addressing reviewers' concerns: Addressing the reviewers' concerns is vital as it enhances the scientific rigor and credibility of the research. Responding thoughtfully to the feedback demonstrates authors' commitment to improving their work based on expert guidance and strengthens the manuscript for eventual publication.
6. Resubmission of revised manuscript: Once the revisions are complete, authors resubmit their revised manuscript along with the response letter. This resubmission is essential for reviewers to reevaluate the revised work and verify that all the concerns have been adequately addressed.
7. Re-Evaluation by reviewers: The revised manuscript and the response letter are returned to the original reviewers or a new set of reviewers for reevaluation. Reviewers carefully compare the original submission, the response letter, and the revised manuscript to assess the effectiveness of the authors' revisions.
8. Reviewer validation of revisions: Reviewers critically assess the authors' responses to their previous comments. They verify if the revisions adequately address the identified issues and determine if the research has been strengthened, clarifications have been made, and the significance of the findings is appropriately emphasized.
9. Iteration and continuous improvement: The Author Feedback and Revisions stage may involve multiple iterations, with authors and reviewers engaging in a constructive dialogue to ensure the research is of the highest quality. Iterative revisions contribute to the continuous improvement of the research and its presentation.
10. Objective decision-making: Based on the reviewers' evaluation of the revised manuscript, the editorial board makes an objective and informed decision about the suitability of the manuscript for publication. The decision considers the authors' responsiveness to the reviewers' comments and the manuscript's alignment with the journal's standards.
11. Respect for reviewers' expertise: Authors value and respect the expertise of the peer reviewers. Even if not all reviewer suggestions are incorporated, authors provide clear explanations for their decisions while maintaining the utmost professionalism and gratitude towards the reviewers' valuable contribution to the manuscript's improvement.

The Author Feedback and Revisions stage at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal represents an iterative process of collaboration between authors and reviewers, where both parties work towards ensuring the research achieves its highest potential. This phase facilitates the continual enhancement of the research, ensuring that the final published manuscript reflects the highest standards of scientific integrity, clarity, and contribution to the multidisciplinary fields covered by the journal.

Final Decision and Publication

The final decision and publication stage represent the culmination of the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. After authors have addressed the reviewers' comments and revised their manuscripts accordingly, the editorial board, under the guidance of the Editor-in-Chief, conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the revised manuscripts and the reviewers' feedback. This stage is crucial as it determines whether a manuscript will be accepted for publication in the journal or not.

Point to point elaboration

1. Comprehensive evaluation: At this stage, the editorial board carefully examines the revised manuscripts in light of the reviewers' feedback. The goal is to ensure that the authors have adequately addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewers and that the research aligns with the journal's scope and mission. The comprehensive evaluation encompasses multiple aspects of the manuscript, including the scientific rigor, methodological soundness, significance of the findings, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical guidelines.
2. Reviewers' feedback relevance: The editorial team thoroughly assesses whether the authors have appropriately addressed the reviewers' feedback. The evaluation goes beyond mere incorporation of changes; it scrutinizes whether the revisions strengthen the manuscript, improve its scientific validity, and enhance its clarity. The relevance and significance of the reviewers' feedback in shaping the final manuscript are central to the decision-making process.
3. Alignment with journal's scope: IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal focuses on promoting multidisciplinary research within the realms of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. During the evaluation, the editorial board ensures that the accepted manuscripts align with the journal's scope. This alignment involves verifying that the research has the potential to contribute significantly to multiple disciplines and that it addresses complex challenges that can benefit from a multidisciplinary approach.
4. Consistency with journal's standards: The editorial team ensures that the revised manuscript adheres to the journal's high standards of academic excellence and ethical conduct. This scrutiny covers various elements, such as proper referencing, appropriate citation of prior research, compliance with ethical guidelines, and the use of clear and concise language. Consistency with these standards reinforces the credibility of the research and its potential impact on the scientific community.
5. Final decision: Based on the comprehensive evaluation, the editorial board arrives at a final decision regarding the manuscript. The decision is not solely based on the opinions of individual reviewers; rather, it takes into account the collective input of the reviewers and the editorial team. The decision-making process aims to ensure objectivity and fairness while upholding the journal's commitment to scientific excellence and integrity.
6. Acceptance: If the revised manuscript meets all the journal's criteria for publication, demonstrates scientific significance, and aligns with the journal's scope, it receives an acceptance decision. This outcome signifies that the research has successfully passed the rigorous peer review process and will be published in IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. The authors are notified of the acceptance, and they proceed to the final steps of the publication process, which include formatting, proofreading, and other editorial requirements.
7. Acceptance with minor revisions: In some cases, the manuscript may be accepted pending minor revisions. This decision indicates that the research holds considerable promise but requires minor improvements or clarifications before it is considered ready for publication. Authors receive specific feedback and suggestions from the editorial team, and they are expected to address these minor revisions promptly to proceed with publication.
8. Major revisions and resubmission: If the manuscript shows potential but requires significant improvements to address major concerns raised by the reviewers, it may be accepted with the condition of major revisions and resubmission. Authors are provided with detailed feedback from the reviewers, highlighting the specific areas that need substantial improvement. They are encouraged to take this feedback seriously and invest time and effort in revising their work comprehensively.
9. Rejection: While the goal of the peer review process is to identify and publish high-quality research, not all submissions may meet the stringent criteria required for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the necessary scientific rigor, lack novelty, or do not align with the journal's scope and mission may receive a rejection decision. This outcome is not a reflection of the authors' abilities or the value of their research, but rather an acknowledgment that the manuscript does not align with the journal's objectives.
10. Feedback to authors: Regardless of the decision outcome, authors receive constructive feedback from the peer review process. For accepted manuscripts, the feedback acknowledges the strengths of the research and may provide suggestions for further improvement or clarification. For manuscripts with conditions of revision or rejection, the feedback provides specific areas for improvement, outlining the rationale behind the decision. This feedback serves as valuable guidance for authors, assisting them in advancing their research and preparing it for potential submission to other journals.
11. Ethical considerations: The final decision also includes a thorough examination of ethical considerations. The editorial team ensures that the research adheres to ethical guidelines, such as obtaining appropriate ethical clearance for human or animal studies, handling data and intellectual property ethically, and providing transparency in the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Ensuring ethical integrity is a vital component of the publication process, safeguarding the rights and well-being of research participants and promoting responsible research conduct.
12. Timely communication: Throughout the final decision and publication process, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal maintains timely communication with authors. Transparent and prompt communication ensures that authors remain informed about the status of their manuscripts, publication timelines, and any additional requirements needed for the final publication.
13. Strengthening the body of knowledge: The final decision and publication stage play a significant role in advancing scientific knowledge. Accepted manuscripts contribute to the growing body of scientific literature, making new discoveries accessible to the wider academic community and the public. The publication of research with high scientific rigor and multidisciplinary relevance enhances the understanding of complex challenges and encourages further interdisciplinary research and collaboration.

In conclusion, the final decision and publication stage in the peer review process of IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal is a meticulous and critical process. Through comprehensive evaluation, consideration of reviewers' feedback, and adherence to the journal's high standards and ethical guidelines, the editorial team ensures the publication of research that upholds scientific rigor and makes valuable contributions to the multidisciplinary domains it covers. Transparent communication with authors and meticulous ethical considerations further strengthens the journal's commitment to advancing knowledge and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

Post-Publication

The post-publication phase is a critical aspect of the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. It represents the period after a research manuscript has been accepted, published, and made available to the scientific community and the public. During this phase, the research undergoes continued scrutiny, engagement, and discussion, contributing to the ongoing refinement and validation of scientific knowledge.

The post-publication phase involves several key elements that play a pivotal role in shaping the impact and credibility of the published research:

1. Dissemination and accessibility: Upon acceptance and publication, the research becomes accessible to researchers, scholars, practitioners, educators, and the public. The journal ensures that published research is disseminated in a manner that maximizes its visibility and accessibility. This may involve publishing the research in both print and digital formats, ensuring that it is indexed in reputable databases and search engines, and making it freely available under open access models, when appropriate.
2. Citation and references: Citation of published research is an essential part of academic discourse and knowledge dissemination. Researchers from various disciplines cite the published work in their own studies when building upon or referring to the findings. Accurate and appropriate citation practices ensure that authors receive due credit for their contributions and that the scholarly lineage of ideas and findings is appropriately traced.
3. Engagement and critique: The post-publication phase initiates engagement and critique from the broader scientific community. Other researchers and experts within the field have the opportunity to read, evaluate, and respond to the published work. This engagement can take various forms, such as academic discussions, commentary articles, or even replication studies. Constructive critiques, suggestions, and alternative interpretations contribute to a dynamic and iterative scientific dialogue, driving continuous improvement and validation.
4. Reproducibility and verification: The ability to reproduce research findings is fundamental to scientific integrity. During the post-publication phase, researchers may attempt to replicate the published research to verify its results and conclusions independently. Replication studies provide an additional layer of validation and reinforce the credibility of the original research. If necessary, authors are encouraged to provide additional data, methodologies, or materials to support replication attempts.
5. Corrections, errata, and retractions: In some cases, errors or issues may come to light after publication. IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal takes these matters seriously and ensures transparency in addressing them. Corrections and errata are published to rectify minor errors or omissions that do not significantly impact the overall findings. In rare cases where severe issues or ethical concerns are identified, the journal may issue retractions, removing the paper from publication, and providing an explanation for the retraction.
6. Research impact: The post-publication phase also marks the period when the impact of the research becomes evident. Researchers may assess the number of citations, media coverage, and societal influence that the published work generates. This impact evaluation helps gauge the research's relevance, influence, and contributions to its respective field and beyond.
7. Continuing scientific dialogue: Publication marks the beginning of a continuous scientific dialogue, as researchers respond to and build upon the published research. This ongoing discourse leads to new research questions, hypotheses, and collaborations. The post-publication phase nurtures an environment where knowledge is continuously refined, challenged, and advanced through the collective efforts of the scientific community.
8. Openness to feedback and evolution: IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal remains open to feedback and takes a responsive approach during the post-publication phase. Authors are encouraged to engage with the scientific community, respond to critiques, and provide clarifications when necessary. Openness to feedback fosters a culture of transparency, integrity, and a willingness to learn from others.
9. Responsible reporting and interpretation: The post-publication phase emphasizes the responsibility of authors, reviewers, and the journal in reporting and interpreting research findings accurately. All stakeholders must ensure that the research is presented in a manner that aligns with the data and analysis. Responsible reporting mitigates the risk of misinterpretation and miscommunication, promoting a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the research.
10. Continuous learning and improvement: Post-publication engagement offers an opportunity for continuous learning and improvement for authors, reviewers, and the journal itself. Authors may use feedback and critiques to enhance their research methodologies, analyses, and future publications. Reviewers may refine their evaluation processes and provide more targeted feedback, leading to higher quality reviews. The journal, in turn, can learn from the feedback of authors and reviewers and optimize its editorial policies and procedures.

In conclusion, the post-publication phase represents a dynamic and crucial stage in the peer review process of IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. During this phase, the research is disseminated, critiqued, and engaged with by the wider scientific community. The ongoing dialogue, validation, and scrutiny facilitate the advancement of knowledge, strengthen the credibility of published research, and contribute to the dynamic nature of scientific exploration and discovery. The journal remains committed to transparency, openness, and responsible reporting, ensuring that the post-publication phase remains a time of continuous learning, improvement, and scholarly engagement.

Advantages of Peer Review

The peer review process offers numerous advantages that significantly impact the quality and credibility of published research. As IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal upholds its commitment to excellence, understanding these advantages is crucial for fostering a scholarly environment that promotes rigorous research and responsible knowledge dissemination.

1. Quality assurance: One of the primary advantages of peer review is its role as a robust quality assurance mechanism. Rigorous peer evaluation ensures that only research of high scientific standards and validity is published. Expert reviewers critically assess the research methodology, data analysis, interpretation of results, and adherence to ethical considerations. This comprehensive evaluation minimizes the risk of publishing flawed or unreliable research, safeguarding the integrity of the journal and maintaining public trust in the academic community.
2. Filtering mechanism: Peer review acts as an effective filtering mechanism for academic literature. With the increasing volume of research publications, it is essential to identify and disseminate only the most credible and impactful studies. Through the rigorous evaluation by knowledgeable reviewers, manuscripts undergo a stringent selection process, enabling the journal to publish research that significantly contributes to the advancement of knowledge. This filtering function protects readers and researchers from potentially misleading or unverified information.
3. Validation and recognition: Acceptance through the peer review process signifies validation and recognition of the research by the academic community. When a manuscript successfully completes the peer review journey, it receives acknowledgment of its scientific merit, originality, and contribution to the field. This validation is essential for authors, providing them with a sense of accomplishment and motivating them to continue their scholarly endeavors.
4. Improvement of research: The feedback provided by peer reviewers plays a crucial role in improving the quality of research. Constructive critiques and suggestions offered during the peer review process empower authors to enhance their work significantly. Authors can address potential weaknesses, strengthen their arguments, refine research methodologies, and clarify presentation, ultimately leading to stronger and more impactful research outcomes.
5. Ethical oversight: Ethical considerations are fundamental to the integrity of scientific research. Peer review ensures that research adheres to ethical guidelines, such as obtaining informed consent from human participants, ensuring animal welfare, and handling data with confidentiality. Reviewers scrutinize the ethical aspects of the research, ensuring that authors have taken the necessary precautions to protect the rights and privacy of research participants and that the study adheres to ethical norms.
6. Promotion of interdisciplinarity: IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal covers diverse fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The peer review process actively promotes cross-disciplinary engagement and collaboration. Reviewers with diverse expertise from various disciplines assess the manuscript, encouraging authors to explore novel connections and approaches across different fields. This interdisciplinary engagement fosters innovation, enables comprehensive problem-solving, and facilitates the integration of ideas from multiple domains.
7. Impact on the scientific community: The peer-reviewed research published in IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal contributes significantly to the scientific community. Peer-reviewed articles are credible sources of knowledge that other researchers can build upon and cite in their own studies. This scholarly impact is crucial for advancing scientific knowledge, shaping research agendas, and inspiring future research directions.
8. Advancement of knowledge: Peer review accelerates the advancement of knowledge by facilitating the timely dissemination of credible research findings. It allows the academic community to access the latest research developments, enabling researchers to stay current with advancements in their respective fields. The peer review process contributes to a collective effort in building a comprehensive body of knowledge, fostering progress and innovation across disciplines.
9. Improved communication: Through the peer review process, authors receive valuable feedback on how to effectively communicate their research findings. Reviewers assess the clarity and coherence of the manuscript, offering insights on how to present the research in a manner that is understandable and accessible to a wide audience. As a result, authors can refine their writing and presentation skills, enhancing the impact of their work within the scientific community and beyond.
10. Public trust and policy impact: The rigorous peer review process enhances public trust in scientific research. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals are considered reliable and accurate sources of information. Policymakers, journalists, and the general public often turn to peer-reviewed research for evidence-based decision-making. As such, the peer review process contributes to informed public policy and societal well-being.

In conclusion, the advantages of the peer review process are multifaceted and crucial for the success of IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. By promoting quality assurance, filtering high-quality research, validating and recognizing scholarly contributions, facilitating research improvement, and ensuring ethical integrity, the peer review process upholds the journal's commitment to scientific excellence. Furthermore, the promotion of interdisciplinary engagement, impact on the scientific community, advancement of knowledge, improved communication, and establishment of public trust highlight the essential role of peer review in the advancement of scientific knowledge and the betterment of society as a whole.

Continuous Improvement and Transparency

Continuous improvement and transparency are foundational principles that drive the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. These principles ensure that the journal remains at the forefront of scholarly publishing, upholding the highest standards of academic integrity, and fostering a culture of open dialogue and constructive engagement among authors, reviewers, editors, and the wider scientific community. Through continuous improvement and transparency, the journal strives to enhance the peer review experience for all stakeholders, promote ethical conduct, and advance the dissemination of high-quality research.

Point to point elaboration

1. Periodic review and refinement: The peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal undergoes periodic review and refinement to align with evolving best practices and industry standards. The journal's editorial board regularly assesses the peer review guidelines, workflows, and communication strategies. They consider feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers to identify areas for improvement.
2. Engagement with authors and reviewers: IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal actively seeks feedback from authors and reviewers on their experiences with the peer review process. Through surveys, feedback forms, or one-on-one interactions, the journal collects valuable insights to understand what aspects of the peer review process work well and where enhancements are needed.
3. Timely and transparent communication: Transparency is vital for building trust and ensuring authors and reviewers are informed throughout the evaluation process. IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal maintains clear and timely communication with authors, notifying them of the status of their manuscripts and expected timelines for reviews, revisions, and publication. Reviewers are promptly informed about the final editorial decision on the papers they reviewed.
4. Industry best practices: The journal actively embraces industry guidelines and best practices from reputable organizations, including the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Council of Science Editors (CSE). By aligning with established best practices, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal demonstrates its commitment to ethical conduct, fairness, and quality in the peer review process.
5. Reviewer training and development: To enhance the expertise and skills of its reviewers, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal provides training resources and development opportunities. Reviewers may receive guidance on conducting objective evaluations, providing constructive feedback, and adhering to ethical considerations during the review process.
6. Acknowledgment of reviewers: The journal acknowledges the valuable contributions of its reviewers by providing appropriate recognition for their efforts. Whether through public acknowledgments on the journal's website or certificates of appreciation, recognizing reviewers' contributions fosters a sense of involvement and encourages continued engagement.
7. Transparent evaluation criteria: To promote transparency, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal shares its evaluation criteria with authors and reviewers. The criteria encompass originality, significance, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and ethical considerations. Clear communication of these criteria enables authors to better align their submissions with the journal's expectations.
8. Editorial decision transparency: The journal ensures transparency in the editorial decision-making process. When making publication decisions, the editorial board provides authors with comprehensive explanations for acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejections. Such transparent communication fosters authors' understanding of the evaluation process and encourages further improvement of their work.
9. Ethical oversight and integrity: Continuous improvement extends to ethical oversight, ensuring that all aspects of the peer review process adhere to ethical guidelines. IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal maintains strict confidentiality of author identities and protects against potential conflicts of interest to uphold the integrity of the peer review process.
10. Author-centric approach: In pursuit of continuous improvement, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal adopts an author-centric approach to the peer review process. Authors' feedback is actively sought and considered when making adjustments to the peer review process. The goal is to provide authors with a constructive and supportive experience that encourages their growth as researchers.
11. Encouragement of diversity and inclusivity: As part of continuous improvement, the journal aims to foster diversity and inclusivity in the peer review process. It actively seeks reviewers from diverse backgrounds, institutions, and regions, ensuring a broad range of perspectives in evaluating submitted manuscripts. This approach enriches the review process and helps eliminate potential biases.
12. Data-driven decision making: Continuous improvement at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal is driven by data and evidence. The journal collects and analyzes data on peer review timelines, reviewer response rates, and author feedback to make informed decisions on process optimization and resource allocation.
13. Openness to experimentation: The journal remains open to experimentation with different peer review models and workflows. By piloting new approaches, such as open peer review or preprint evaluations, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal seeks to explore innovative ways to improve the peer review process and meet the evolving needs of researchers.
14. Transparent post-publication policies: Beyond publication, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal maintains transparency in its post-publication policies. If any significant issues are identified after publication, such as errors or misconduct, the journal follows established procedures for issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.
15. Open access and data sharing: To enhance transparency, the journal embraces open access publication models whenever possible. Open access allows the wider scientific community and the public to freely access published research, promoting knowledge dissemination and collaboration. Additionally, the journal encourages authors to share their research data and materials openly, promoting reproducibility and transparency in research.
16. Journal-wide learning: Continuous improvement efforts extend beyond the peer review process to all aspects of the journal's operation. IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal actively seeks feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers on the overall user experience and usability of the journal's platform. Such feedback informs regular updates and improvements to enhance the journal's accessibility and user-friendliness.

In conclusion, continuous improvement and transparency are integral to the peer review process at IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal. Through periodic reviews, engagement with stakeholders, adherence to industry best practices, and a commitment to ethical conduct, the journal aims to enhance the quality and credibility of its peer review process continually. The author-centric approach, openness to experimentation, and acknowledgement of diversity foster a dynamic and inclusive scholarly environment that facilitates groundbreaking research and interdisciplinary collaboration. By promoting transparency and data-driven decision-making, IgMin Research - STEM | A Multidisciplinary Open Access Journal remains dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge, promoting ethical research practices, and contributing to the progress of science across diverse disciplines.