Peer Review Policy of Knowledgeable Research Journal

Knowledgeable Research, a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, 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 published content meets the expectations of both researchers and readers. Below is an outline of our Peer Review policy.

Reviewing Procedure

Each manuscript submitted to Knowledgeable Research undergoes an initial evaluation to ensure that it aligns with the journal’s scope and adheres to the formal submission guidelines. If a manuscript passes this initial evaluation, it is sent for double-blind peer review. In the double-blind process, both the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential, promoting an unbiased review environment.

The typical time for a review is four weeks, although it may extend up to two months depending on the complexity of the manuscript and availability of appropriate reviewers. After the review process is completed, a final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, which may include acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection of the manuscript.

Peer Review Process

1. Manuscript Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through the online system. An acknowledgment letter confirming receipt is sent to the authors.

2. Initial Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript for alignment with the journal’s scope, formatting, and other submission requirements. Manuscripts not meeting the scope or formal guidelines may be rejected directly.

3. Assignment of Reviewers: If the manuscript passes initial screening, it is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic background and knowledge relevant to the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

   • Originality and contribution to the field

   • Theoretical framework and methodology

   • Clarity and coherence of the analysis

   • Grammar, style, and readability

   Reviewers provide constructive feedback to help the authors improve their work. They also recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

5. Decision by Editor-in-Chief: Based on the reviewers’ comments, the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision. Possible outcomes include:

   • Accept the manuscript as is

   • Accept with minor revisions

   • Revise and resubmit for further review

   • Reject

6. Revision Process: If revisions are requested, authors are asked to submit a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments along with the revised manuscript. The manuscript is then reviewed again to ensure that the revisions are satisfactory.

7. Final Publication: After final acceptance, the manuscript is sent for copyediting, formatting, and layout preparation. Upon final proofreading, the article is published.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest, such as personal relationships with the authors, financial interests, or academic collaborations. If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must notify the editor immediately.

• Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript content and review process. They should not use any information obtained during the review for personal gain or share it with others.

• Objective and Constructive Criticism: Reviews should focus on the quality and relevance of the manuscript. Reviewers should offer suggestions for improvement, but personal attacks or inappropriate comments about the author’s work will not be tolerated.

• Timely Review: Reviewers should complete the review within the assigned time frame. If they are unable to meet the deadline, they must inform the editor promptly.

Editorial Oversight

The editorial team ensures that the peer review process is unbiased, thorough, and high in academic quality. If there are any concerns regarding the objectivity or quality of a review, additional reviewers may be appointed. The editor-in-chief oversees all stages of the review process and makes the final publication decisions.

Ethical Considerations

• Plagiarism: The journal has a strict policy against plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected, the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be informed.

• Duplicate Submissions: Manuscripts that have been previously submitted or published elsewhere will not be considered.

• Research Ethics: Manuscripts involving human or animal subjects must comply with ethical research guidelines, and authors should provide proof of ethical approval where applicable.

The double-blind peer-review process at Knowledgeable Research is designed to maintain the integrity, credibility, and scholarly standards of the journal. Through this process, we ensure that every published manuscript is thoroughly vetted and meets the expectations of the academic community.