Originality
Does the work add something not already established in the literature, and is the contribution stated accurately rather than overclaimed?
Double-blind review in practice
Authors do not know the identity of their reviewers, and reviewers are not told who the authors are. The editorial office removes author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding statements, and file metadata before a manuscript is circulated, and returns manuscripts to authors when self-identifying material remains in the text.
Anonymity is intended to reduce the influence of institution, seniority, gender, and geography on the assessment of the work. Handling editors see author identities, which is why recusal rules apply to them.
2+
independent reviewers minimum per manuscript
4–8
weeks typical for the review round
3rd
reviewer invited when reports conflict
Reviewer selection
The handling editor identifies reviewers from the journal's panel, from the cited literature, and from subject databases, applying the following requirements:
- ·A doctoral degree, or equivalent standing, and recent peer-reviewed publications in the manuscript's specialism.
- ·No shared institution with any author, no co-authorship within the past five years, and no supervisory or family relationship.
- ·Reviewers from different institutions and, wherever possible, different countries.
- ·A declared absence of competing interests before the manuscript is released to them.
Authors may name up to three preferred and three non-preferred reviewers with a brief justification. Editors are not bound by either list and never assign a reviewer nominated without verifiable institutional contact details.
Evaluation criteria
Reviewers complete a structured report scoring each criterion and supplying written justification.
Methodology
Is the design appropriate to the question, adequately described for replication, and are the analyses and error treatment sound?
Significance
Do the conclusions follow from the evidence, and are they of consequence to researchers or practitioners in the field?
Clarity
Is the manuscript logically organised, are figures and tables legible and necessary, and is the referencing complete and accurate?
Possible decisions
Accept
The manuscript is scientifically sound and requires no further changes beyond copyediting. Rare at first decision.
Minor revision
Conclusions stand; clarifications, additional analysis detail, or presentational corrections are needed. Normally assessed by the handling editor alone.
Major revision
Substantive concerns about method, analysis, or interpretation that may be answerable. Returned to the original reviewers after revision; a major revision is not a promise of acceptance.
Reject
Findings are not supported, the method is not sound, the work is out of scope, or the concerns cannot be resolved by revision. Reasons are always given in writing.
Confidentiality and reviewer responsibilities
Confidentiality
- Manuscripts are privileged communications and must not be shown, discussed, or forwarded to anyone outside the review.
- Manuscripts may not be uploaded to generative AI or other third-party services under any circumstances.
- Unpublished material, data, or ideas may not be used for a reviewer's own work.
- Copies must be deleted once the review is submitted.
Reviewer responsibilities
- Decline promptly where expertise is insufficient, a competing interest exists, or the deadline cannot be met.
- Give specific, evidence-based, courteous comments; personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.
- Identify relevant published work not cited — but never request citations to the reviewer's own work for its own sake.
- Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submission to the editor rather than acting independently.
- Delegation to a colleague or student requires the editor's prior consent and full disclosure.
Join as a reviewer
IJKR is building its reviewer panel across all five subject tracks. Reviewing is voluntary and unpaid; reviewers receive a formal acknowledgement of service and may record verified review activity on their ORCID record.
Eligibility
- Doctoral degree, or a doctoral candidate with published work
- At least two peer-reviewed publications in the specialism
- Institutional email address and public ORCID record
How to apply
Email a short CV, your ORCID iD, and three to five specialist keywords to reviewers@ijkr.org. Applications are verified against institutional records before a first assignment.