Peer-Review Process
ILMT employs a double-blind anonymous peer-review process to ensure impartiality and scholarly rigor. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Stages of Review:
-
Initial Screening: The Chief Editor and an Associate Editor conduct an initial evaluation of the manuscript for relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, quality of writing, ethical compliance, and adherence to formatting guidelines.
-
Similarity Check: All submissions are screened through iThenticate for originality verification.
-
Peer Review Assignment: Eligible manuscripts are assigned to two or three qualified reviewers with expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
-
Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, contribution to knowledge, ethical standards, and clarity of presentation.
-
Decision Process: Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial team decides whether to:
-
Accept the manuscript,
-
Request minor or major revisions, or
-
Reject the submission.
-
-
Revision Stage: Authors receive detailed feedback and are given sufficient time to address reviewers’ comments. The revised version is re-evaluated before final acceptance.
-
Final Decision and Proofing: After acceptance, the article undergoes copyediting, layout design, and proofreading prior to online publication.
The typical review timeline is 6–8 weeks, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewers’ availability. The journal is dedicated to maintaining an efficient, transparent, and fair review process that upholds academic excellence.
