Peer Review Policy

Sabrang Research Journal follows a double-blind peer-review process for research articles.

Under the double-blind review system, the identities of both the author(s) and reviewer(s) are kept confidential throughout the review process. The names and identifying information of the author(s) are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers. Similarly, the identity of reviewers is not disclosed to the author(s).

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first examined by the editorial team to determine whether they:

  • Fall within the scope of the journal;

  • Meet the basic academic and scholarly requirements;

  • Follow the journal's Author Guidelines;

  • Demonstrate sufficient originality and academic relevance; and

  • Are suitable for peer review.

A manuscript may be returned to the author or rejected at this stage if it does not meet the journal's basic requirements.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to appropriate reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

The journal seeks reviewers who have suitable academic or research experience in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers are selected with the aim of ensuring an objective, fair, and academically informed evaluation.

3. Double-Blind Review

In the double-blind review process:

  • The identity of the author(s) is concealed from the reviewer(s);

  • The identity of the reviewer(s) is concealed from the author(s);

  • Reviewers are expected not to attempt to identify the author(s);

  • Authors are expected not to attempt to identify the reviewer(s); and

  • Manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents.

Authors should therefore avoid including information in the manuscript that unnecessarily reveals their identity, such as acknowledgements, institutional details, personal biographical information, or statements that directly identify the authors during the review stage.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally expected to assess manuscripts on the basis of factors such as:

  • Originality and significance of the research;

  • Relevance to the scope of the journal;

  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives;

  • Quality and appropriateness of the methodology, where applicable;

  • Use and interpretation of primary and secondary sources;

  • Strength of analysis and argument;

  • Scholarly contribution;

  • Accuracy and adequacy of references;

  • Organization and presentation of the manuscript;

  • Language and clarity; and

  • Overall academic quality.

Reviewers may recommend Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, or provide equivalent recommendations through the journal's review system.

5. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts received for review as confidential.

They must not:

  • Share the manuscript with others without authorization;

  • Discuss the manuscript outside the review process;

  • Use unpublished information or ideas from the manuscript for personal or professional benefit; or

  • Disclose their review or identity to the author(s).

Reviewers should also inform the editor if they have any actual or potential conflict of interest.

6. Editorial Decision

The reviewers' recommendations are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized editor.

The final decision regarding publication rests with the editor. The editor may:

  • Accept the manuscript;

  • Request minor revisions;

  • Request major revisions;

  • Send the revised manuscript for further review; or

  • Reject the manuscript.

The editor may seek an additional review where the reviewers' recommendations differ substantially or where further academic assessment is considered necessary.

A reviewer's recommendation does not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

7. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the editorial office.

Authors may also be asked to provide a response explaining how the reviewers' comments have been addressed.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to new reviewers where appropriate.

8. Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the peer-review process as efficiently as possible. However, the actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the nature of the manuscript, the need for additional reviews, and the time required for revisions.

Authors may contact the editorial office regarding the status of their manuscript if a reasonable period has passed without an update.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their assessment of a manuscript.

A reviewer should decline the assignment where a significant conflict exists, including circumstances involving close personal or professional relationships, recent collaboration, academic competition, financial interests, or other factors that may compromise impartiality.

10. Editorial Independence

Sabrang Research Journal is committed to maintaining an independent and fair peer-review process.

Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript and are not based on the author's gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, institutional affiliation, seniority, political views, or personal relationships.

11. Ethical Standards

The journal expects editors and reviewers to follow recognized principles of responsible peer review and publication ethics, including relevant principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal may periodically review and update its peer-review policy to improve the fairness, transparency, confidentiality, and academic quality of the review process.