Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

ICCK employs a rigorous single-blind review process by default, where reviewers know the authors’ names but remain anonymous themselves. Double-blind review is available upon journal policy. All research articles, reviews, and most other article types undergo peer review by at least two independent experts. Submissions are first screened for completeness and plagiarism using iThenticate before assignment to an Academic Editor.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

  • Completeness – All files (manuscript, figures, data) present.
  • Formatting – Compliance with journal template and style.
  • Ethics – Declarations of originality, funding, and conflicts.

Manuscripts failing these checks may be desk-rejected or returned for revision before peer review.

3. Peer Reviewer Selection

Academic Editors choose reviewers based on subject expertise, independence, and diversity (geography, gender, career stage). Authors may suggest reviewers; suggestions are considered but not guaranteed.

4. Review Process & Responsibilities

Invitation & Acceptance

Reviewers respond within 3 days, suggest alternatives if declining, and request extensions if needed.

Evaluation Criteria

Assess methodology, results accuracy, and whether conclusions are supported by data.

Report Quality

Provide constructive, detailed comments with clear rationale; avoid superficial feedback.

Timeliness

Complete reviews within the agreed 2–3 week timeframe, requesting extensions sparingly.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any personal, financial, or academic ties to authors before accepting an invitation. Conflicted reviewers should recuse themselves immediately.

6. Confidentiality & Ethics

  • All manuscript content and review correspondence remain confidential.
  • Reviewers destroy all manuscript copies after review completion.
  • Suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data falsification) must be reported to the Editor-in-Chief.

7. Handling Misconduct

Allegations of peer review manipulation or ethical breaches follow COPE guidelines. Outcomes may include rejection, correction, or retraction. Breaches may lead to sanctions.

8. Reviewer Recognition

  • Certificates of Contribution available on request.
  • Opportunity to join the Editorial Board for outstanding reviewers.
  • Annual acknowledgment on the ICCK website (with permission).

9. Policy Updates

This policy is reviewed annually. Last updated: December 2023. Any significant changes will be posted on the ICCK website and communicated to the Editorial Board.