Editorial Process

ICCK journals implement a rigorous peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality and integrity in every publication

ICCK Peer Review Process Flow Chart

Visual representation of our comprehensive peer review workflow

1

Initial Checks

All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Office are subject to an initial screening by a Managing Editor before being forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief. This check ensures that the manuscript is properly formatted, complies with the journal's ethical policies, and falls within the journal's scope. Manuscripts that fail to meet these basic requirements may be rejected or returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. No judgment on the significance or potential impact of the work is made at this stage. Rejection decisions during the initial check are verified by the Managing Editor.

2

Assignment to Editor-in-Chief

Manuscripts that pass the initial check are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, who may assign the manuscript to a responsible academic editor for peer review. If a manuscript does not meet the journal's quality standards, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to reject it directly. The Editor-in-Chief may also request revisions before initiating the peer-review process.

3

Assignment to Academic Editor

The Academic Editor is responsible for evaluating the academic quality of the manuscript and selecting at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic or technical expertise for manuscripts that meet the requirements. All reviews are conducted under a single-blind model. The Academic Editor may also directly recommend rejection of the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief or request the authors to revise the manuscript.

4

Peer Review and Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, scientific rigor, clarity, relevance, methodology, and its contribution to the research community. They are asked to provide detailed comments and a recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject).

5

Editorial Decision

Based on at least two independent review reports, the Academic Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision.

6

Revision and Re-review

Authors invited to revise must address all reviewer comments point-by-point. Revised manuscripts may be assigned to the previous reviewers for re-evaluation, especially in cases of major revisions. Authors are expected to submit their revised version within 30 days.

7

Final Check

For manuscripts accepted by the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Office will conduct a final technical and ethical review. Upon successful completion of this review, authors will receive an official acceptance notification. Manuscripts that do not meet the required standards will be returned to the Editor-in-Chief for further handling.

8

Production and Publishing

Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading, and will be published online.

Ethical Guidelines

  • COPE Compliance: ICCK journals adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines, ensuring ethical behavior throughout the publication process.
  • Single-Blind Review: Our peer review process follows a single-blind model where reviewers know the authors' identities, but authors do not know the reviewers' identities.
  • Minimum Reviewers: All manuscripts undergo evaluation by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic or technical expertise.
  • Editor-in-Chief Authority: The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over acceptance/rejection decisions and is responsible for maintaining academic quality.
  • Timely Responses: We strive to provide authors with decisions within reasonable timeframes and ensure transparent communication throughout the review process.