Knowledgeable Research — ISSN: 2583-6633 | CODEN: KRABAU
Double-Blind ReviewCOPE CompliantWoS ReadyDOAJ AlignedTransparent Process
Knowledgeable Research is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal that follows a rigorous and transparent manuscript review process to ensure the highest quality of scholarly publications. Our review procedure is designed to maintain the integrity and objectivity of academic work while ensuring that all published content meets the expectations of both researchers and the wider academic community. This policy is aligned with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Web of Science (WoS), and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).
2+
Independent Reviewers per Manuscript
4 Wks
Typical Review Turnaround
100%
Double-Blind Anonymity
0
Tolerance for Plagiarism or Misconduct
Reviewing Procedure — Overview
Each manuscript submitted to Knowledgeable Research undergoes an initial editorial evaluation to verify alignment with the journal's scope and compliance with the formal submission guidelines. Manuscripts passing this stage proceed to the double-blind peer review stage, in which both the identities of the authors and the reviewers remain confidential throughout the process, promoting a fully unbiased review environment.
The typical review turnaround is four weeks, though this may extend to up to eight weeks depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of appropriately qualified reviewers. Upon completion of the review process, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on the reviewers' recommendations and the overall scholarly merit of the manuscript.
Step-by-Step Peer Review Process
1
Manuscript Submission
Author Action
Authors submit their manuscripts through the Online Journal System (OJS). All submissions must be accompanied by a completed Declaration & Copyright Form. Upon successful submission, an automated acknowledgement letter confirming receipt and providing a manuscript reference number is sent to the corresponding author within 2 working days.
2
Initial Editorial Evaluation
Editorial Office
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor reviews the manuscript for:
Alignment with the journal's subject scope and aims
Compliance with formatting and submission guidelines
Plagiarism check using standard detection software (threshold: below 15%)
Completeness of required documentation
Manuscripts failing this initial check may be desk-rejected without peer review. Authors are notified promptly with a brief reason for rejection.
3
Assignment of Reviewers
Editorial Office
Manuscripts passing the initial evaluation are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewer selection is based on:
Academic qualifications and research background in the relevant field
Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions
Availability to complete the review within the designated timeframe
Reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities (double-blind anonymity).
4
Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers
Reviewers assess each manuscript against the following criteria:
Criterion
Description
Weight
Originality & Contribution
Novelty of the research question and its contribution to the field
High
Theoretical Framework
Robustness and appropriateness of the conceptual and theoretical foundations
High
Methodology
Soundness, rigor, and suitability of the research design and methods
High
Results & Analysis
Accuracy, coherence, and depth of data analysis and interpretation
High
Clarity & Readability
Quality of writing, structure, grammar, style, and overall presentation
Medium
References
Adequacy, currency, and accuracy of citations and bibliography
Medium
Reviewers must provide constructive, specific feedback to assist authors in improving their work. Personal criticism of the authors or non-scholarly commentary is strictly prohibited.
5
Decision by Editor-in-Chief
Key Decision
Based on the reviewers' reports and an independent editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:
Accept As Is
The manuscript is accepted for publication without any revisions required.
Accept with Minor Revisions
Small corrections or clarifications are needed before final acceptance.
Revise & Resubmit
Substantial revisions are required; manuscript will undergo further review after revision.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards and will not be published.
6
Revision Process
Author Action
Where revisions are requested, authors are required to submit:
A revised version of the manuscript incorporating all changes
A detailed point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, clearly indicating what changes were made and where
A track-changes version of the revised manuscript (where applicable)
Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated to ensure that all requested changes have been addressed satisfactorily. Authors must complete revisions within the stipulated deadline; failure to do so may result in the manuscript being withdrawn from consideration.
7
Final Publication
Published
Upon final acceptance by the Editor-in-Chief, the manuscript proceeds through the following stages before publication:
Copyediting — Language, grammar, and style are refined by the editorial team.
Typesetting & Layout — The article is formatted according to the journal's standard template.
Author Proofreading — The corresponding author reviews the final proof for any typographical errors.
DOI Assignment — A unique DOI is assigned via Crossref for permanent identification and citation.
Online Publication — The article is published in full Open Access on the journal website immediately.
Reviewers' Responsibilities
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Reviewers must immediately declare any potential conflicts of interest — including personal relationships with authors, financial interests, or prior academic collaborations — and recuse themselves from review if a conflict is identified.
Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript content, the review comments, and the entire review process. Manuscript information must not be used for personal gain or disclosed to any third party.
Objective & Constructive Criticism
Reviews must be grounded in the scholarly merit of the manuscript. Feedback should be specific, constructive, and focused on improving the quality of the work. Personal attacks or inappropriate commentary about the authors will not be tolerated.
Timely Completion
Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluation within the assigned timeframe (typically four weeks). If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they must notify the editorial office promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be appointed without delay.
Editorial Oversight
Ensuring Integrity, Objectivity & Quality
The editorial team of Knowledgeable Research is responsible for ensuring that the peer review process is unbiased, thorough, and of the highest academic quality at every stage. Where concerns arise regarding the objectivity or adequacy of a review, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to appoint additional reviewers or seek an independent expert opinion. The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over all publication decisions and may override reviewer recommendations in exceptional circumstances where warranted by clear editorial judgment. All editorial decisions are documented and retained as part of the journal's quality assurance records.
Ethical Considerations
Plagiarism
Zero Tolerance: The journal maintains a strict anti-plagiarism policy. All manuscripts are screened using standard plagiarism detection software prior to peer review. If plagiarism is detected at any stage — including post-publication — the manuscript will be rejected or retracted, and the authors will be formally notified in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Duplicate Submission
Not Permitted: Manuscripts that have been previously published, or are currently under consideration for publication in any other journal, conference proceedings, or book, will not be considered. Simultaneous submissions constitute a serious breach of publication ethics.
Research Ethics
Ethics Approval Required: Manuscripts involving human or animal subjects must demonstrate compliance with relevant ethical research guidelines (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki). Authors must provide evidence of Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee approval, which should be stated explicitly in the Methods section of the manuscript.
AI Disclosure
Mandatory Disclosure: The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation, drafting, or editing of the manuscript must be disclosed transparently in the Methods section or Acknowledgements. AI tools may not be listed as authors or co-authors under any circumstances.
Data Integrity
Authentic Data Required: Authors are responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of all data presented. Fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data constitutes research misconduct and will be dealt with in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Commitment to Quality: The double-blind peer review process at Knowledgeable Research is designed to uphold the integrity, credibility, and scholarly standards of the journal. Through rigorous, transparent, and ethically grounded review, we ensure that every published manuscript has been thoroughly vetted and meets the expectations of the global academic community. Our process is fully aligned with the standards of COPE, Web of Science, and DOAJ.
