Pick a Model, Then Spell Out Every Detail
A genuine peer-review policy names a particular model (single-blind, double-blind, open or transparent), says how reviewers are chosen and how many assess each manuscript, sets out how conflicts of interest are handled, explains what authors get along with a decision, and describes the revision and appeals steps. A policy that merely says "rigorous peer review" without such detail cannot be checked by an author, an institution or a directory like DOAJ — and that vagueness deserves attention in itself.
The Four Models of Review
| Model | Author knows reviewer? | Reviewer knows author? | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-blind | No | Yes | Straightforward, but the reviewer may be swayed by the author's identity or reputation |
| Double-blind | No | No | Lessens some biases; hard to anonymise fully in small fields |
| Open | Yes | Yes | Greater accountability; could discourage candid criticism |
| Transparent | Depends on the underlying model | Depends on the underlying model | Refers to what gets shared (comments and reasoning), not to the identity model itself |
What a Genuine Policy Has to Say
- The exact review model in use (named outright, not merely "peer reviewed")
- The minimum count of independent reviewers per manuscript
- The way reviewers are chosen and assigned
- Rules on disclosing conflicts of interest and stepping aside
- What authors are given together with a decision
- How revision works and any rules on resubmission
- A route for appeal on procedural grounds
- A realistic review timeframe stated as an estimate, not a guarantee
The Peer-Review Model JMVRA Uses
JMVRA follows double-blind, transparent peer review. Authors and reviewers do not see each other's identities, at least two independent reviewers assess every manuscript, and authors get the anonymised reviewer comments with the final decision instead of a plain accept or reject. The Open-Process Peer Review page has the complete policy and details.
Writing a Peer Review Policy That Works in Practice
A policy is useful only if staff follow it and authors can understand it. These ideas help editors draft wording that is specific, fair and realistic for the journal's available resources.
- Describe what really happens. Write the policy from your actual workflow rather than from an ideal copied elsewhere. Authors quickly notice when published promises differ from their experience.
- Explain how reviewers are chosen. State the qualities you look for and how conflicts are screened. Transparency about selection reassures authors and guides editors when they must find substitutes.
- Give reviewers a structured form. Provide prompts on originality, methods, ethics and presentation, with space for confidential remarks to the editor. Structured reports are more useful and easier to compare.
- Set out decision categories plainly. Define what accept, revise and reject mean, and who has the final word. Clear categories prevent disputes and help authors respond to decisions without guessing.
- Test the policy with a colleague. Ask someone unfamiliar with the journal to read it and explain it back to you. Any confusion they show points to wording that needs simplification.
Base the policy on real practice, explain each step in plain words, and have an outsider read it before you publish it.
How to Write the Appeals Section
- Eligibility — authors whose papers were rejected
- Basis — factual mistakes or bias, not mere disagreement
- Procedure — a written appeal to the editor giving reasons
- Decision maker — an editor who took no part in the first decision
- Result — the final decision is given in writing
Covering AI and Confidentiality Rules
Reviewer confidentiality
Sharing manuscripts is not allowed.
AI tools
Manuscripts must never go into public AI tools.
Data protection
Submissions are to be handled securely.
Declarations
Reviewers declare conflicts.
FAQs on Peer-Review Policy
How do single-blind and double-blind review differ?
In single-blind review only the reviewer's identity is hidden from authors; in double-blind review each side is hidden from the other.
What does open peer review involve?
Reviewers' identities (sometimes entire reports) are made public, giving up anonymity in exchange for accountability.
What is meant by "transparent peer review"?
Authors get substantive reviewer comments and the reasoning behind the decision, and this can apply within any identity model.
How many reviewers should assess each manuscript?
Two independent reviewers at minimum is common practice, and the policy should say so explicitly.
What should a policy say about conflicts of interest?
It should call for disclosure and for stepping aside wherever a real conflict exists.
Should authors have a way to appeal a rejection?
Having a documented appeals process for procedural concerns is good practice.
Which peer-review model does JMVRA use?
It uses double-blind, transparent peer review and sends reviewers' anonymised comments to authors with the decision.
Must a policy be made public?
Yes — a policy kept internal cannot be checked by authors or by directories like DOAJ.
How long ought a review cycle to last?
There is no universal standard — give a realistic target grounded in how available reviewers actually are.
Is it right for a peer review policy to cover appeals?
Yes. Authors need to know how a decision can be challenged.
May a policy set a minimum number of reviewers?
Yes, and stating it increases trust.
Related Searches
Watch Double-Blind Review at Work
Send your paper to JMVRA and see the entire transparent peer-review process for yourself.
Submit Paper OnlineAt-a-Glance Checklist
- Model statedIn a single clear sentence
- Reviewer number givenNormally two or more
- Conflict rulesDocumented and applied
- Appeals routePublished
- Public policyLinked on every page
How Transparent Peer Review Works, Stage by Stage
- SubmissionA preliminary screening of plagiarism, formatting and fit with the subject scope.
- Reviewer appointmentSubject experts are assigned by way of the Scholar9 portal.
- Double-blind reviewEvaluation covers originality, significance, clarity and method.
- DecisionAcceptance, a request for revision or rejection is announced by email and WhatsApp.
- RevisionThe authors respond to every comment, one at a time.
- TransparencyThe review record is on Scholar9; the report can be requested when needed.
Open reports, optional reviewer identity and open participation are three ways to be transparent; this page covers how JMVRA applies them.
Ready to Publish? Submit to JMVRA
JMVRA is aligned with UGC's Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
JMVRA is a Transparent, Peer-Reviewed, Open Access Journal (Refereed Journal). Following the discontinuation of the UGC and UGC-CARE journal listing, and in alignment with the latest UGC-CARE recommendations and guidelines, JMVRA is aligned with UGC’s Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
Quick links across jmvra.org
Key Terms
Subjects and search phrases this article addresses.
Related Reading
Further reading on the same theme from the JMVRA blog.
Open-Process Peer Review
Read the guide RelatedDocumentation
Read the guide RelatedBecome a JMVRA Reviewer or Editorial Board Member
Read the guide RelatedAssembling an Editorial Board for a New Journal
Read the guide RelatedWhy a Multidisciplinary Journal Works for Any Field
Read the guide RelatedNaming a New Academic Journal
Read the guideKeep Reading on the JMVRA Blog
Our JMVRA journal blog carries this guide along with other practical advice on publishing, indexing, metrics and research integrity, all written so that claims can be verified and nothing is promotional.