Editorial and Peer Review Process
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All submissions are first assessed by the editorial office to ensure alignment with the journal’s scope, adherence to ethical standards, and fulfillment of minimum quality requirements. Manuscripts that meet these criteria proceed to peer review.
2. Peer Review Model
NICS employs a rigorous, transparent, and structured Double-Blind Peer Review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout evaluation.
3. Reviewer Assignment
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when specialized expertise is required or to resolve conflicting evaluations.
4. Editorial Oversight
Section Editors oversee the peer-review process, including reviewer selection, assessment of reports, and recommendation formulation. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision.
5. Review Timelines
The standard review period is approximately 5–6 weeks. Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional review rounds.
6. Evaluation Criteria
Manuscripts are assessed based on:
Additional considerations include:
7. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct
All submissions are treated as confidential. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and must not use, share, or retain manuscript content for personal or professional purposes.
8. Revision and Re-Review
Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original reviewers to ensure that all concerns have been addressed. Manuscripts may undergo multiple rounds of revision before a final decision is reached.
NICS is committed to a fair, unbiased, and timely review process that supports authors and upholds the highest standards of scholarly publishing.