Peer Review Process

Luxfia: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research [e-ISSN : 3163-4281] applies an Open Peer Review model to enhance transparency and trust in the scholarly publishing process. This process is conducted based on the following principles:

  1. Transparent Reviewer Identity
    Reviewer identities are disclosed to the authors to foster accountability and provide constructive feedback.

  2. Open Review Reports
    Review reports are published alongside the published article, enabling readers to understand the scientific evaluation process and assess the strengths and weaknesses identified by the reviewers.

  3. Interactive Review
    Authors and reviewers can interact openly during the review process to encourage collaboration and improve the quality of the manuscript.

  4. Recognition for Reviewers
    Reviewers have the option to sign their reviews and receive public recognition for their contribution to the peer review process.

  5. Ethical Standards
    All parties involved in the review process are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring a fair, respectful, and unbiased evaluation process.

This Open Peer Review model aims to increase overall transparency, accountability, and quality of the peer review process for the benefit of authors, reviewers, and the broader academic community.

Key Characteristics of Open Peer Review in This Journal:

  • Reviewer names are disclosed to the authors.

  • Review reports are published alongside the published article.

  • Authors and reviewers can interact directly during the review process.

  • Reviewers may choose to sign their reviews and receive public recognition.

  • The review process is conducted with high ethical standards, fairness, and scientific integrity.

  • Editorial decisions and their rationale are shared transparently with the authors.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

  1. Submission and Technical Check
    Upon submission, manuscripts undergo a technical check to ensure compliance with the journal's formatting and ethical guidelines.

  2. Initial Editorial Review
    The editorial team evaluates the manuscript to assess its suitability and alignment with the scope of the journal.

  3. Editor Assignment
    If deemed suitable, the manuscript is assigned to an editor who will manage the peer review process.

  4. Reviewer Selection
    The editor selects and contacts peer reviewers with relevant expertise to evaluate the manuscript. At least two reviewers are assigned.

  5. Review Process
    Reviewers provide detailed feedback regarding the scientific quality, validity, and contribution of the submitted manuscript.

  6. Author Revision
    Based on the reviewers' feedback, authors may be requested to revise the manuscript. This process may occur over multiple rounds until the manuscript is deemed acceptable.

  7. Final Decision
    The editor makes a final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations and the author's revisions. Possible decisions include:

    • Accept without revision: The article will be published in its original form.

    • Accept with minor revisions: The article is accepted subject to minor modifications within a specified timeframe.

    • Accept with major revisions: The article will be accepted if significant improvements are made as requested by the reviewers/editor.

    • Resubmit (conditional rejection): The article may be reconsidered after major revisions and resubmission.

    • Reject: The article will not be published or reconsidered.

  8. Publication
    Accepted manuscripts proceed to publication, which includes final copyediting, typesetting/layout, and online publication on the journal's website.

Plagiarism

All manuscripts submitted to this journal will be screened using Turnitin software to detect plagiarism and ensure originality and scientific integrity.