Peer Review Process

VJ Research Hub considers peer review to be a fundamental part of scholarly publishing. It is not simply a formality or a checkpoint. It is a process that allows experts to assess the value, clarity, and contribution of a manuscript, ensuring that what is published meets academic standards and serves the research community in a meaningful way. At its best, peer review is both critical and constructive. It provides authors with helpful insights, challenges assumptions, and helps shape the final published work into something stronger and more complete.

Every manuscript submitted to VJ Research Hub undergoes a rigorous and fair review process. We follow a double-blind peer review model for most journals, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to one another. In specific subject areas or formats where double-blind is not suitable, we may use a single-blind review process. The choice of model depends on the norms of the discipline and the nature of the manuscript being reviewed. In all cases, we ensure that the evaluation is unbiased and based solely on the quality and relevance of the content.

Once a manuscript is submitted, it is first screened by the editorial office. This initial check confirms that the submission is within the scope of the selected journal, complies with our formatting requirements, and does not raise ethical concerns. Submissions that pass this stage are then assigned to a handling editor. The editor reviews the manuscript in detail and, if it meets basic standards, selects appropriate reviewers who are knowledgeable in the topic area. Reviewers are chosen based on their subject expertise, academic background, publication history, and prior experience as reviewers. We do not rely on automated systems to match reviewers, and we avoid assigning unrelated or loosely connected experts to technical content.

Reviewers are given a structured framework to guide their evaluation. They assess the originality of the work, the clarity of presentation, the soundness of methodology, the relevance of findings, and the accuracy of data and interpretation. They are also encouraged to provide narrative comments to support their recommendation and to highlight both strengths and areas for improvement. We ask reviewers to be fair and specific, not vague or unnecessarily critical. The purpose of peer review is to improve work, not to reject it without reason.

Turnaround time for peer review is typically between two to four weeks, although this can vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability. We make every effort to complete the process efficiently, and our editorial team maintains communication with reviewers to ensure timelines are respected. Authors are informed if delays occur and are always kept updated on the status of their submission.

At the conclusion of the review process, the editor makes a decision based on the reviewers’ comments and their own assessment of the manuscript. Possible decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. In cases where revisions are requested, authors are given clear guidance on how to address the reviewers’ concerns. They are encouraged to submit a point-by-point response along with the revised manuscript. This ensures that the review process remains transparent and that each issue raised is addressed directly.

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers, particularly if the revisions are substantial. This allows reviewers to confirm that their comments have been addressed and that the revised version meets the necessary standards. For minor changes, the handling editor may make a final decision without a second round of review. All final decisions rest with the editorial team, and acceptance is never guaranteed based on reviewer support alone. Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the publication and may reject a paper if serious issues arise during the review process or revision stage.

VJ Research Hub values respectful and professional interaction during peer review. We do not tolerate personal criticism, dismissive comments, or unconstructive feedback. Reviewers who fail to provide meaningful or courteous evaluations are not invited for future participation. At the same time, we protect the identity of reviewers to preserve the integrity of the review system and encourage honest assessments. Authors who feel that a review was inappropriate or unfair are invited to appeal through a formal editorial review. These appeals are considered carefully and without prejudice.

We also recognize the important role reviewers play in the academic community. Without their effort, peer-reviewed publishing could not exist. We thank our reviewers publicly where permitted, and we offer official recognition letters upon request. We also support reviewer development by offering guidance for new or early-career researchers who are beginning to review. Those interested in joining our reviewer network can contact the editorial office with their credentials, publication background, and subject areas of expertise.

Peer review is not only for traditional research articles. All submissions to VJ Research Hub journals, including case reports, short communications, pictorial essays, and video formats, are evaluated through review. We apply the same principles of fairness and relevance across all formats. Even in cases where a submission is brief or experimental, we ensure that a qualified expert examines the content and confirms its value. We do not publish without proper review under any circumstances.

We also encourage transparency in situations where appropriate. Some of our journals are exploring open review options, where reviewers’ names may be disclosed or comments may be published alongside the article with consent. While this is not currently required, we see value in allowing communities to see how review shaped the final version of an article. Authors will always be informed if their submission is part of a journal that uses open or partially transparent peer review.

Ethical review is another area of focus. Manuscripts involving clinical research, patient data, animal studies, or sensitive information are expected to include appropriate ethical approval and consent documentation. Reviewers and editors are instructed to flag concerns if they believe a study lacks ethical oversight or shows signs of data irregularities. All allegations of misconduct, plagiarism, or duplicate submission are investigated in accordance with our publishing ethics policy. We follow industry guidelines set by organizations such as COPE to ensure that our process remains fair and responsible.

VJ Research Hub treats peer review as a conversation. It is a structured dialogue between researchers and their peers that improves quality, ensures trust, and helps move scholarship forward. We respect the time and expertise of our reviewers, and we respect the work authors put into their submissions. Our goal is to provide a review system that does not frustrate or unnecessarily delay but instead adds value at each stage.

For every submission we receive, we ask the same question: has this work been evaluated carefully, respectfully, and by the right people? If the answer is yes, then we are doing our job. If not, we revisit the process and correct it. This commitment to real review, guided by people rather than just processes, is what sets VJ Research Hub apart.

We welcome suggestions from authors, editors, and reviewers on how we can continue to strengthen our peer review practices. Feedback is always encouraged, and we take concerns seriously. As our journals grow and diversify, we will continue to build our peer review system with the same care, discipline, and attention to detail that drives every part of our publishing mission.