Peer review model

• Default model: Double-blind peer review — reviewers do not know author identities and authors do not know reviewer identities. Authors must anonymize manuscripts for review (remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and identifying metadata).
• Exceptions & flexibility: In some disciplines or for specific article types (e.g., invited pieces, editorials, commentaries, or where community norms favour open review), the Editor may apply single-blind or open peer review. Any deviation from the default model will be stated on the relevant journal’s submission page and in the decision letter.
• Open peer review options: Where open review is chosen, reviewer names and/or review reports may be published with the article only with reviewer consent and with clear advance disclosure to authors and reviewers.

Editorial governance & roles

• Publisher (Neewaj): Sets and maintains publisher-level policies, ensures archiving (Internet Archive, SSRN) and DOI allocation (Zenodo), and supports indexing efforts and compliance.
• Managing Director: Mr. Shah Newaj Borbhuyan — oversees publisher strategy and editorial governance.
• Editor-in-Chief / Journal Editors: Responsible for academic standards, final decisions on manuscripts, appointing editorial board members, and safeguarding editorial independence.
• Associate/Section Editors: Manage submissions in their subject area; select reviewers and make recommendations.
• Editorial Board: Experts appointed for their scholarship, expertise and diversity of perspective. Board members are listed with institutional affiliation and role. Board members help shape scope, advise on policy, and act as ambassadors; they do not make day-to-day editorial decisions unless appointed to an editorial role. Editorial board membership and affiliations are reviewed periodically and updated on the journal site.

Manuscript handling workflow (high level)

1. Initial check (editorial office): Scope, completeness, compliance with Author Instructions, plagiarism screening (similarity check), ethical approvals, anonymization for review. Manuscripts failing these checks may be returned without peer review.
2. Assignment to Editor / Associate Editor: Assessment for scientific merit and reviewer selection.
3. Peer review: Typically two independent reviewers (or more in special cases). Reviewers evaluate novelty, methodology, ethics, data availability, clarity, and literature context.
4. Decision recommendation: Reviewers recommend Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Associate Editor synthesizes reports and recommends to Editor-in-Chief.
5. Final editorial decision: Issued by Editor-in-Chief (or delegated editor). Decision letters include summary of reasons and reviewer comments.
6. Post-acceptance: Proofing, DOI minting (Zenodo), publication and archiving (Internet Archive, SSRN).

Reviewer selection & responsibilities

• Selection criteria: Reviewers are selected for subject expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, prior reviewing quality (if known), and availability. Editors aim for geographic, institutional and gender diversity when practical.
• Number of reviewers: Normally two independent reviewers. Editors may seek additional reviews if reports disagree or subject matter is interdisciplinary.
• Reviewer responsibilities: Provide timely, constructive, and confidential assessments; declare conflicts of interest; report ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, fabricated data); comment on data transparency and reproducibility; recommend improvements.
• Reviewer ethics: Reviewers must not use or share confidential manuscript content for personal advantage. They must return or destroy reviewer materials after the review process if requested.

Conflict of interest (COI) policy

• Authors: Must disclose funding sources, affiliations, and any competing interests in the manuscript (see Author Instructions).
• Editors and reviewers: Must recuse themselves from handling or reviewing manuscripts where a real or perceived conflict exists (recent collaboration, same institution, direct competition, personal relationships, financial interests). If recusal is necessary, an alternate editor/reviewer will be assigned.
• Management: All declared COIs will be recorded; significant undisclosed conflicts discovered post-publication will be investigated and may lead to correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

Ethical oversight, allegations & misconduct

• Standards: Neewaj adheres to international ethics standards (e.g., COPE flowcharts and guidance). Editors use COPE guidance to handle suspected misconduct.
• Screening: Initial checks include plagiarism/similarity screening. Large overlaps or undisclosed duplicate submissions may lead to rejection.
• Investigation procedure: Allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, unethical research, or authorship disputes will be investigated confidentially by the editorial office and publisher. We will contact relevant parties (authors, institutions, funders) and follow COPE recommendations.
• Outcomes: Depending on findings, outcomes may include correction, expression of concern, retraction, or notification to the authors’ institutions and funders. Records of investigations and final actions are retained by the publisher.

Corrections, retractions & expressions of concern

• Corrections: For honest errors that do not invalidate results, a correction (erratum or corrigendum) will be published and linked to the original article.
• Expressions of concern: Issued when concerns are raised and an investigation is ongoing.
• Retractions: Reserved for severe issues (fraud, major errors, unethical research) and published transparently with a retraction notice explaining the reason. Retractions do not remove the original article from the record; they are clearly labelled and linked.

Appeals & complaints

• Appeals: Authors who believe an editorial decision was made improperly may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief explaining the grounds and providing supporting evidence. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors or an independent editorial committee not involved in the original decision. Reconsideration may lead to re-review.
• Complaints: Complaints about editorial conduct, reviewer behaviour, or policy non-compliance should be sent to editorial@neewaj.com. Complaints are acknowledged, investigated impartially, and the complainant informed of the outcome.

Confidentiality & data protection

• Manuscript confidentiality: Manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential. Only editorial staff, assigned editors and reviewers have access during the review process. Requests for data or materials are handled according to the Data Availability Statement and ethical/privacy constraints.
• Personal data: Personal information provided during submission is processed in accordance with our Privacy Policy and relevant data protection laws.

Transparency & editorial independence

• Transparency: Neewaj publishes this Peer Review & Editorial Policy publicly, lists editorial board members with affiliations, and discloses APCs and waiver criteria. We will provide information on peer review type and editorial processes on journal pages.
• Independence: Editorial decisions are independent of commercial or political influence. Advertisers, sponsors or funders have no role in editorial decisions. Any potential influence is disclosed.

Data, reproducibility & research integrity

• Data availability: Manuscripts must include a Data Availability Statement. Editors and reviewers may request raw data, code, or materials where necessary to verify results. Authors are encouraged to deposit data in public repositories and provide DOIs.
• Reproducibility checks: For high-impact or high-risk findings, editors may request additional checks, independent validation, or access to data and code prior to acceptance.

Reviewer recognition & training

• Recognition: Reviewers may opt to have their reviewing activity acknowledged (e.g., public reviewer acknowledgement, reviewer certificate or via recognized reviewer-credit services) consistent with reviewer consent.
• Training & guidance: Neewaj provides clear reviewer guidance and templates. Editors provide feedback to reviewers where appropriate to promote high quality review standards.

Record keeping & retention

Neewaj retains submission files, reviewer reports and correspondence for a minimum period consistent with best practice and indexing requirements. Records are used for editorial integrity, dispute resolution and reporting.

Special cases & editorial discretion

Editors may exercise discretion in applying policies for special article types (e.g., rapid communications, invited symposia, themed issues) and will state any special review procedures on the submission page. All such variations are applied transparently and consistently.

Alignment with indexing and best-practice bodies

Neewaj aligns its editorial and peer review policies with international best practices (including COPE and standards expected by major indexers). We maintain transparent editorial processes, clear peer review descriptions, and publicly accessible policies to support future indexing applications (DOAJ, Web of Science, Scopus).

Contact for editorial matters

• Editorial enquiries & complaints: editorial@neewaj.com
• General enquiries: contact@neewaj.com
• Phone: +91 97076 71638
• Postal address: Pub Jaruni, Hojai, Assam – 782440, India