Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

IMAC Review follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly integrity of published research in the field of mediation, arbitration, and dispute resolution law.

Under the double-blind system:

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.

• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

This ensures impartial, objective, and unbiased evaluation.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes:

1. Preliminary Editorial Review to assess:

   • Relevance to the journal’s scope

   • Compliance with submission guidelines

   • Academic quality and structure

2. Plagiarism Screening using recognized similarity detection software.

Manuscripts failing to meet basic requirements may be desk-rejected before peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to:

• At least two independent expert reviewers

• Reviewers with relevant subject expertise in mediation, arbitration, international law, or dispute resolution

Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, research background, and experience.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Originality and contribution to the field

• Legal and methodological soundness

• Analytical depth and critical reasoning

• Relevance to mediation and arbitration practice

• Clarity, structure, and academic writing quality

• Proper citation and referencing

5. Review Timeline

The standard review timeline is:

• Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks

• Peer review process: 3–6 weeks

• Final editorial decision: Upon receipt of reviewer reports

Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability.

6. Review Outcomes

After peer review, the Editor-in-Chief may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision

• Minor revisions required

• Major revisions required

• Reject

Authors receiving revision decisions must resubmit within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must:

• Not share or discuss the manuscript with third parties

• Not use unpublished material for personal research

• Declare any conflict of interest

8. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including:

• Institutional affiliation

• Personal relationships

• Financial interests

• Competitive research

If a conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the assignment.

9. Ethical Oversight

The peer review process follows internationally recognized ethical standards promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

10. Editorial Independence

Final publication decisions are made solely on academic merit and ethical considerations. Financial factors, including Article Processing Charges, have no influence on editorial decisions.

11. Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was made in error may submit a formal appeal with detailed justification. The appeal will be reviewed independently, and the Editor-in-Chief’s final decision will be communicated in writing.