Peer Review Policy

At Nexus House Editorial, we uphold a rigorous peer review process designed to ensure the scientific rigor, originality, and ethical compliance of every manuscript. Our evaluation protocol follows internationally recognized best practices to maintain the integrity of academic publishing.

1. Technical Screening

Before editorial review, all submissions undergo a similarity check using Plagius software. Manuscripts with over 25% similarity are not accepted. Additionally, we run a structural analysis to detect AI-generated content, using the same 25% threshold.

2. Preliminary Editorial Assessment (Triage)

If the manuscript passes the technical phase, a member of the Editorial Committee evaluates its relevance, originality, academic quality, and formatting. Based on this assessment, the manuscript is either sent for peer review or rejected outright.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to two external experts in the relevant field. The process is double-blind, maintaining the anonymity of both authors and reviewers.

Reviewer comments are submitted via our OJS platform and shared with the authors, along with required revisions to improve the manuscript.

4. Confidentiality and Transparency

  • Reviewer identities are confidential and may only be disclosed in exceptional cases with editorial authorization and proper referencing.

  • Reviewer suggestions from authors are not accepted.

  • All supplementary materials (tables, graphs, appendices) are subject to peer review.

5. Final Editorial Decision

The Editorial Committee makes the final publication decision based on reviewer reports and revised manuscript quality. Possible outcomes include:

  • Publishable: Optional reviewer suggestions; editor's recommendations are mandatory.

  • Publishable with modifications: Revisions by both reviewer and editor are mandatory.

  • Not publishable: Manuscript is rejected.

If reviewers disagree, a third expert is appointed. Should this reviewer recommend “Publishable with modifications,” the Editorial Committee will determine whether a second review round is needed:

  • Minor revisions: Reviewed by editorial staff only.

  • Major revisions: Subject to full peer review again.

If the manuscript still requires major revisions after the second round, it will be rejected.

6. Timeline and Editorial Transparency

All published articles will include the dates of submission, acceptance, and publication, ensuring a transparent editorial record. Authors will be informed of any delays and may withdraw their manuscript if necessary.

7. Ethical Commitment

Confidentiality is a core principle of our review process. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from disclosing or discussing manuscript content with third parties. Authors can trust that reviewer identities will remain protected throughout the process.