NIJEC is indexed in
Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Process
NIJEC employs a double-blind peer review process following an initial editorial screening. Manuscripts are reviewed anonymously—reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and the authors are not informed of the reviewers’ names or affiliations.
The objective of the double-blind review is to ensure scholarly rigor and maintain objectivity in evaluation. Emphasis is placed on research that demonstrates originality, validity, and both theoretical and practical relevance.
Final publication decisions rest with the Editorial Board, based on reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s overall contribution, comprehensiveness, and assurance of being free from duplication of previously published work.
Mission
The peer review process at NIJEC is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of academic rigor and excellence. Its purpose is to ensure that all published research reflects integrity, intellectual depth, and scholarly quality.
Vision
Our vision is to create an inclusive academic platform that empowers professionals and researchers to share original insights and innovative perspectives, enriching discourse within their respective disciplines.
Values
NIJEC is committed to fostering diversity of thought and scholarly exchange. We value reviewers who engage with manuscripts thoughtfully—offering feedback that is analytical, constructive, and respectful. Our reviewers represent a broad spectrum of academic, professional, and cultural backgrounds, bringing global viewpoints to the journal’s review process.
Ethical Principles
Confidentiality is a fundamental aspect of the peer review process. All materials related to a submission—including invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and review reports—must remain strictly confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from discussing, sharing, or distributing any part of the review or manuscript without explicit consent from the editorial team and the authors concerned. This obligation extends to maintaining the confidentiality of other reviewers’ comments provided as part of the editorial decision process, even after the article’s publication.
