Peer Review Process
Ensuring the excellence and integrity of scholarly research through rigorous, double-blind independent evaluation.
Process Workflow
HJPARAM follows a strict Double-Blind Peer Review process. Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout the process. Below is the journey of a manuscript from submission to decision:
Initial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor performs an initial check for scope, originality, and basic technical quality. Plagiarism detection tools are used at this stage.
Independent Review
The manuscript is sent to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers assess scientific rigor, methodology, significance of results, and clarity.
Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer feedback, the editor makes a decision: Accept, Revisions Required (Minor/Major), or Reject.
Ethics and Standards
Our review process follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and must treat manuscripts with strict confidentiality.
Reviewer Requirements
- Academic Standing: Hold a PhD or equivalent in a relevant field.
- Proven Expertise: Have a proven track record of research and publication.
- Professional Rigor: Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback.
- Timeline Commitment: Submit review reports within specified timelines (2-3 weeks).