The International Review of Multidisciplinary Research (IRMR) utilizes a rigorous double-blind peer review architecture to ensure the integrity, objectivity, and scholarly merit of all submissions. This mechanism is designed to eliminate systemic bias by ensuring that neither the authors nor the reviewers are cognizant of each other’s identities throughout the evaluative duration.

1. The Peer Review Protocol

Upon successful clearance of the Phase 1 (Screening) requirements, manuscripts are sequestered for expert evaluation.

• Independent Expert Selection: Manuscripts are assigned to a minimum of two independent subject-matter experts selected from our proprietary OJS database or vetted external nominations.

• Conflict of Interest Mitigation: All potential reviewers are subjected to an ethical audit to ensure no financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest exist with the manuscript or its authors.

• Blinding Protocol: To maintain structural anonymity, all identifiers—including author names, institutional affiliations, and biographical references—are excised from the manuscript. Furthermore, files are meticulously anonymized before transmission, ensuring that reviewers receive only the blinded PDF of the research.

2. Evaluative Criteria and Scholarly Rigor

Reviewers are instructed to evaluate manuscripts based on the following technical and analytical benchmarks:

• Originality and Contribution: Assessment of whether the manuscript offers a novel contribution that has not been disseminated previously.

• Methodological Integrity: Verification of reproducible research methods, institutional ethical compliance, and the functionality of associated GitHub data links.

• Statistical and Analytical Rigor: Confirmation that the results support the author's claims and that all data presentation adheres to APA 7th edition standards.

• Theoretical Contribution: Evaluation of the discussion section to ensure a balanced interpretation of findings, critical limitations, and substantive theoretical expansion.

• Structural Coherence: Adherence to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) framework, requiring a logical flow and comprehensive section completion as per the official IRMR template.

3. Reviewer Decision Categories

Reviewer recommendations are categorized into four distinct administrative outcomes:

• Acceptance: The manuscript is deemed ready for publication subject only to minor copyediting. This advances the submission to the post-acceptance administrative phase.

• Minor Revisions: The work requires non-substantive adjustments regarding typography or formatting. Authors are provided a 1–14 day window for revisions, followed by a re-verification by the original reviewers.

• Major Revisions: The work displays concerns regarding methodology, data analysis, or theoretical framing. Authors are granted 1–30 days for revisions, which will subsequently undergo a fresh blind review cycle.

• Rejection: Reserved for manuscripts that possess fundamental flaws or fall outside the journal’s multidisciplinary scope. Rejected authors may resubmit only as a new manuscript after a minimum 3-month embargo.

4. Communication and Reciprocity

The IRMR maintains a transparent channel of communication via the OJS dashboard and direct email.

• Point-by-Point Rebuttal: Authors are mandated to provide a point-by-point response to all reviewer comments during the revision process.

• Anonymity Maintenance: Throughout the entire revision cycle, the editorial team re-blinds all manuscripts to ensure that author identities remain concealed from reviewers at all times.

Effective June 1, 2026, this policy reinforces the IRMR's commitment to scholarly excellence through a fair, objective, and intellectually demanding review process.