Double-blind peer review
The evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the Ivy Enber Scientific Journal (IES) is conducted in pairs through the Double-Blind Review method, in which each manuscript is evaluated by two ad hoc reviewers (one internal and one external) selected according to specialty or thematic affinity with the manuscript content.
Internal Reviewers are specialists who are part of the journal’s Editorial Board. External Reviewers are specialists from other institutions, selected through an annual call. The Ivy Enber Scientific Journal annually publishes a roster containing the names and institutions of all external ad hoc reviewers. To access the roster, click here.
After submission, the manuscript is evaluated by ad hoc reviewers, who analyze it and suggest corrections and improvements. Subsequently, the editor conducts the analysis, resolves controversial cases, reviews opinions, and decides on the rejection or acceptance of the manuscript.
After the editor’s analysis, the manuscript is returned to the authors for the implementation of the improvements suggested by the reviewers.
Finally, the author submits the final version of the manuscript together with its similarity detection software report. The final version must be submitted using the journal’s official template.
The evaluation process is blind, without the identification of authors and ad hoc reviewers.
The time between article submission and the first response from reviewers is up to 120 days. The time between submission and publication is also up to 120 days.
Among the main advantages of the double-blind review process adopted by the journal are:
- anonymity of both author and reviewer, ensuring impartiality in the evaluation process;
- greater credibility and prestige of evaluation processes;
- improvement in the communication process of research results.
