Submissions

Author Guidelines

Authors are invited to make a submission to this journal. All submissions will be assessed by an editor to determine whether they meet the aims and scope of this journal. Those considered to be a good fit will be sent for peer review before determining whether they will be accepted or rejected.

Before making a submission, authors are responsible for obtaining permission to publish any material included with the submission, such as photos, documents and datasets. All authors identified on the submission must consent to be identified as an author. Where appropriate, research should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee in accordance with the legal requirements of the study's country.

An editor may desk reject a submission if it does not meet minimum standards of quality. Before submitting, please ensure that the study design and research argument are structured and articulated properly. The title should be concise and the abstract should be able to stand on its own. This will increase the likelihood of reviewers agreeing to review the paper. When you're satisfied that your submission meets this standard, please follow the checklist below to prepare your submission.

-------

Peer Review Policy

Multidisciplinary Research Academic Journal (MDRAJ)
ISSN (print): 2467‑4699 | ISSN (online): 2467‑4834
Effective date: March 2025
Version: 7.0

1. Policy Overview

MDRAJ is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity and publication ethics. All submitted manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening undergo double‑anonymised peer review as the primary mechanism for quality assurance. The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

This policy applies to all manuscript types, including original research articles, review articles, and short communications.

2. Peer Review Model

2.1 Standard Model: Double‑Anonymised Review

• Author identities are hidden from reviewers.
• Reviewer identities are hidden from authors.
• Authors must anonymise their manuscript before submission (no names, affiliations, or self‑identifying references).

2.2 Optional Transparent Peer Review

Authors may opt‑in to publish the anonymised reviewer reports, editorial decision letters, and author response letters alongside the final article. This option does not affect the acceptance decision.

3. Peer Review Process Flow

Target time to first decision (from submission): 5–7 weeks.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using the following standardised criteria:

Reviewers are asked to provide constructive, respectful feedback and to recommend one of the following outcomes: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.

• Accept – The manuscript is approved for publication as is, with no further changes required (or only very minor copyediting handled by the journal).
• Minor Revisions – The manuscript is fundamentally sound, but small changes are needed (e.g., clarifying a sentence, adding a reference, fixing a table). The editor may check the revisions without sending the paper back to reviewers.
• Major Revisions – The manuscript has promise, but significant changes are required (e.g., re‑analysing data, rewriting a section, adding experiments). The revised paper is typically sent back to the original reviewers for re‑evaluation.
• Reject – The manuscript is not accepted for publication. Reasons may include fatal flaws in methodology, lack of novelty, ethical problems, or being out of scope. Resubmission is generally discouraged unless the journal explicitly invites a new submission after major changes.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

All invited reviewers must:

• Declare any conflicts of interest (personal, financial, or institutional) and recuse themselves if necessary.
• Maintain strict confidentiality – do not share the manuscript, data, or review content with anyone.
• Submit reviews within 4 weeks or notify the editor immediately if unable.
• Avoid using AI‑generated text for the review without explicit editor approval and full disclosure.
• Base comments solely on the manuscript’s quality, not on the author’s identity, nationality, or affiliation.

Reviewers may suggest a Co‑Reviewer (e.g., an early‑career researcher), but the named reviewer remains responsible for the final report.

6. Editorial Decision Categories

The Editor‑in‑Chief has final authority on all decisions.

7. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal a rejection by submitting a formal appeal letter to the Editor‑in‑Chief within 30 days of the decision. The letter must:

• State the manuscript ID and title.
• Specify each point of disagreement with the decision or reviewer comments.
• Provide factual or methodological justification.

The appeal will be handled by a different editor (if possible) and a final decision will be issued within 4 weeks. Appeals are rarely successful but are treated with full transparency.

8. Ethical Oversight & Compliance

• COPE membership: MDRAJ is a member of COPE and follows its Core Practices.
• Plagiarism: All submissions screened with iThenticate. >15% similarity without attribution leads to rejection or retraction.
• Data availability: Authors must include a Data Availability Statement. Deposition in a recognised public repository is strongly encouraged.
• Conflicts of interest: Authors, reviewers, and editors must declare all relevant interests.
• Corrections & retractions: MDRAJ follows COPE guidelines for post‑publication corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions.

9. Recognition of Reviewers

MDRAJ values its reviewers. The journal offers:

• Optional reviewer credit via ORCID (integrated with the submission system).
• Annual reviewer acknowledgment (names published on the website, unless opted out).
• Certificate of review upon request.
• A pilot publication fee waiver for every third complete review submitted on time.

10. Policy Review & Amendments

This policy is reviewed annually by the Editorial Board. Amendments are published on the MDRAJ website with a new effective date. The journal will notify registered authors and reviewers of substantive changes.

For any questions regarding this peer review policy, contact:
Editorial Office – peerreview@mdraj.org (placeholder)

Version history:
1.0 – March 2016 – Initial public release.