Peer Review Policy


Decision on the Publication of Articles

The Editor-in-Chief of IRD is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief assigns a responsible editor, who will organize reviewing and make decisions about publishing.

Peer review methodology

Publisher complies with the Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (, which provides a comprehensive guide to the ethics of peer review.

INSIGHTS INTO REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (IRD) journal uses external experts to help evaluate articles and assist the editors in making a decision.

When submitted, articles will be pre-evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor. If a submitted paper is assessed as being outside the journal's scope or otherwise unsuitable for consideration, it may be rejected immediately.

All other original research articles which successfully go through the pre-evaluation stage will be sent out for review. Reviewers are selected based on their experience in the field of research. The reviewers are chosen from scientists not belonging to the journal's editorial board. IRD welcomes authors' suggestions but reserves the right to select their reviewers. The authors may request that certain reviewers be excluded from the review process. However, the editors' judgment of the reviewer is final.

The journal uses a single-blind peer-review method, meaning that the authors' names are disclosed to the reviewer, but the reviewer's names are not disclosed to the authors. If the authors have a specific reason why their name should be blinded, they may request this on submission.

Invitations are sent to reviewers; the articles are only sent to them when they agree to review.

The reviewers may express their willingness to review the journal via the journal‘s web page Become a Reviewer section, or the Submission button, which would lead them to an electronic manuscript management system operated by OJS/PKP

The reviewing process is managed by above-mentioned Open Journal Systems software

Reviewers are given 2-3 weeks to return their reviews, and reminders are sent. However, the journal cannot guarantee a time to make a decision since reviewers may be late, or there may be problems in finding the right reviewer. The time to review and make a decision is highly variable since it is sometimes difficult to find suitable reviewers, and there may be delays in receiving reviewer reports. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial office make all efforts to minimize the time from submission to the first decision. The journal aims to make a first decision (after review) within 40–60 days but cannot guarantee this. The journal does not guarantee a quick review. When the editors receive at least two reviews, they will decide.

On receipt of at least two reviews, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor will decide (1) accept, (2) minor revision, (3) major revision, or (4) reject. The reasons for the decision will be communicated to the authors.

When the decision of minor/major revision is made, the authors accomplish their articles by responding to remarks provided in reviewers' reports. The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor reserves the right to reject the article. When revised papers are received, they will either be sent out for further review or the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor will decide depending on the level of revision requested.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

A Conflict of Interest is defined as a situation where personal relationships (e.g. friend, colleague, or family), business relationships (e.g. working in a competing company), or financial influences (e.g. funding) will affect the judgment of any person during the publication of the journal.

Authors are required to declare (within the article and to the Editor-in-Chief) any Conflict of Interest (COI) that may have affected their research (e.g. funding) or decision to submit to the journal.

Reviewers must declare if they have any Conflict of Interest (COI) that may affect their judgment of any article they review. The COI may not prevent them from reviewing the article, but it must be declared to the Editor-in-Chief as soon as it is known.

Editors are excluded from any publishing decision in which they may have a Conflict of Interest (COI). For example, an article by a colleague of the Editor-in-Chief is submitted to the journal. In that case, the peer review and all editorial decisions will be managed by another editor.

Fair play

Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit, regardless of the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.


The Editor-in-Chief and editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.




Suppose any reviewer feels they need more time to complete the manuscript review. In that case, the same must be communicated to the editor so that the same can be sent to any other reviewer.


Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and treated as privileged information.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. The appropriate citation should accompany any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere. A reviewer should also call to the Editor-in-Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. 

What reviewers are asked to do

Reviewers are asked to provide their ORCHID ID and register with their account in Web of Sciences.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the articles for the following:

  • Is the research objective for the article clear and grounded?
  • Does the author make a sufficient overview of other work in the same area of research?
  • Is the methodology suitable to support the research?
  • Is the reporting of findings clear and complete (so far as can be determined)?
  • Are the tables and figures informative and relevant? Are sources of data used indicated?
  • Do the discussion and conclusions accurately reflect the findings?
  • Does the title reflect the main intentions of the article?

Reviewers are asked to always be polite and constructive in their report and never to be abusive or to make unjustified criticisms of the work.