Peer Review Process

The peer review process is a crucial element in maintaining the quality and integrity of academic publications. It ensures the validity, relevance, and originality of submitted manuscripts. The Knowledge and Leadership Alliance follows a peer review approach inspired by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Below is a detailed overview of our review process:

Editorial Oversight

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) has ultimate responsibility for the peer review process. The EIC oversees the assignment of manuscripts to the appropriate Associate Editors or Editorial Board members. Final decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection are based on recommendations provided by reviewers.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are chosen for their expertise, qualifications, and familiarity with the subject matter of the manuscript. They are expected to have relevant academic credentials and experience in the field, along with a commitment to impartial and constructive review.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the quality of the journal’s content. Their responsibilities include:
  • Conducting the review impartially and confidentially, without any personal or professional bias.
  • Assessing the manuscript’s significance, originality, methodology, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards.
  • Providing detailed, constructive feedback to authors, including suggestions for improvement or necessary revisions.
  • Disclosing any conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

Review Process

Once a manuscript is received, the Editor-in-Chief assigns it to one or more reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are expected to complete a thorough evaluation within four to six weeks, although this timeline may vary depending on the manuscript’s complexity.

Decision Making

After receiving feedback from reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision regarding the manuscript. The possible outcomes are:
 
  • Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or only minor revisions.
  • Revision: The manuscript requires revisions to address specific feedback from the reviewers. Authors will be given detailed guidance and a chance to revise and resubmit.
  • Rejection: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards due to significant flaws or deficiencies highlighted during the review process.

Author Notification

Authors are promptly informed of the editorial decision, along with detailed reviewer comments and recommendations. If revisions are necessary, clear guidelines will be provided to help authors address concerns before resubmission.

Confidentiality

The peer review process is conducted with strict confidentiality to ensure the integrity of the review and to protect the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and must not share any information about the manuscript or review process.

Appeals Process

Authors have the right to appeal decisions if they believe there were procedural errors or instances of unfair treatment. Appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Conflict of Interest

Editors, reviewers, and authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may impact the review process or editorial decisions. Conflicts may include personal, professional, or financial relationships that could bias judgment or compromise objectivity.

Scroll to Top