Editorial Decision Making Policy

The journal is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, independent, and unbiased editorial process in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of the scientific quality, originality, significance, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope. Editorial decisions are independent of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, funding source, or any publication or processing charges.

The editorial decision-making process is as follows:

i. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is screened by the Editorial Office to ensure that it:

• falls within the aims and scope of the journal; 
• complies with the journal's submission requirements; 
• includes the necessary ethical declarations and approvals, where applicable; and 
• meets the basic standards of scientific quality and presentation. 
• manuscripts that do not comply with the journal's aims and scope, ethical requirements, or submission guidelines may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.

All manuscripts are screened using iThenticate (Turnitin) to detect text similarity. The similarity report is evaluated by the Editor based on the nature and extent of the overlap. Editorial decisions are not based solely on a fixed similarity percentage, but on the nature, context, and extent of the overlapping text, in accordance with COPE guidance.

ii. Misconduct handling

The journal adheres to COPE guidelines in addressing research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, and citation malpractice. All submissions are screened for plagiarism, with a similarity threshold of 10% serving as an initial indicator; however, evaluation also considers the nature, context, and intent of overlap. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold may undergo further editorial scrutiny. The journal employs image screening tools to detect inappropriate manipulation, duplication, or fabrication of visual data. Citation manipulation—such as excessive self-citation, coercive citation, or inclusion of irrelevant references to inflate metrics—is strictly prohibited. When misconduct is suspected, the journal follows a fair and transparent investigation process. Confirmed cases may lead to rejection, retraction of published articles, notification of authors’ institutions, and other corrective actions as deemed appropriate in line with COPE recommendations.

iii. Peer Review

The journal follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure impartial evaluation. Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts based on scientific merit, originality, and ethical compliance. Reviewer reports are treated as confidential and are not published. However, editorial decisions are based on the constructive feedback provided by reviewers, ensuring transparency and fairness in the evaluation process.

Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or members of the Editorial Board based on their subject expertise, research experience, and absence of any potential conflict of interest.

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, confidentially, and within the stipulated review period, considering:

• originality and novelty;
• scientific merit;
• methodological soundness;
• ethical compliance;
• clarity of presentation; 
• significance of the findings;
• reviewers are required to treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and must not disclose, discuss, or share any part of the submission with others. Unpublished data, ideas, or findings obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage or research purposes. Reviewers must ensure strict confidentiality and integrity throughout the review process; 
• reviewers must not use generative AI tools to evaluate manuscripts (unless explicitly permitted) or process content, as this may compromise confidentiality and intellectual property. All assessments must be conducted independently, maintaining integrity and strict confidentiality.

Reviewer comments and recommendations assist the Editor in reaching an informed editorial decision; however, the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Editor may invite one or more additional reviewers before making a final decision.

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential throughout the peer-review process.

iv. Revision and Final Decision

Authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. The revised manuscript is evaluated by the handling Editor and, where necessary, may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

The final decision to accept, request further revision, or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board based on:

• the scientific merit and originality of the work; 
• the reviewers' recommendations; 
• the adequacy of the authors' responses to reviewers' comments; and 
• compliance with the journal's ethical and editorial standards. 

Where concerns regarding research integrity, publication ethics, plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, citation manipulation, authorship disputes, or other forms of research misconduct arise, the journal will investigate such cases in accordance with the COPE Core Practices, COPE flowcharts, and relevant COPE guidance before reaching a final editorial decision, and may seek clarification from the authors, reviewers, or the authors' affiliated institutions, where appropriate.

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal, together with supporting justification, to the Editor-in-Chief in accordance with the journal's Appeals Policy (https://www.ijmfmap.in/page/appeals-process)