Peer Review Policy

The peer review process is the cornerstone of MnA. It ensures that only high-quality, original, and scientifically rigorous work is published. This policy defines the principles, structure, and procedures governing the peer review system, ensuring fairness, transparency, confidentiality, and accountability across all submissions.

Type of Peer Review

MnA follows a Double-Blind Peer Review model:

Reviewers remain anonymous to authors.
Authors remain anonymous to reviewers.
Editors ensure that identifying details are removed from the manuscript before review.

This model upholds objectivity and prevents bias based on personal, institutional, or geographical identity.

Reviewer Selection Principles

Criterion	Description
Expertise	Reviewers must have demonstrable expertise in the manuscript’s subject area, reflected by publications, academic background, or professional experience.
Objectivity	Reviewers must be free from personal, institutional, or financial conflicts of interest.
Diversity	The journal encourages geographical, institutional, and gender diversity among reviewers to promote inclusiveness.
Confidentiality	Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality of all materials and communications.
Professional Conduct	Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.

Reviewer Identification and Selection Process

Reviewers are identified through:

The journal’s reviewer database
Editorial board recommendations
Literature searches and citation networks
Author suggestions (with validation by editors)

Each manuscript is assigned to a minimum of two reviewers to ensure balanced and credible evaluations.
Reviewers are selected based on topic match, availability, and previous review quality.

Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance

Step 1 – Invitation

The Handling Editor sends an invitation via the journal management system or official email.
The invitation includes the title, abstract, and expected review deadline (typically 7 days).

Step 2 – Reviewer Response

Reviewers must accept or decline the invitation within 7 working days.
If declined, the reviewer may recommend an alternative qualified reviewer (without conflict of interest).
If reviewer does not respond in given time, another reviewer is invited for review.

Step 3 – Confirmation

Upon acceptance, the reviewer gains access to the full manuscript and supporting materials via the system.
Reviewers confirm understanding of confidentiality and ethics obligations.

Reassignment of Reviewers

A reviewer may be replaced if:

They fail to respond to the invitation within 7 days
They decline or withdraw after initial acceptance
Their review is delayed beyond the deadline
Their review is found inadequate or biased

Reassignments are recorded in the editorial management system for audit and transparency.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the integrity and reputation of MnA. They are expected to:

Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.
Identify strengths, weaknesses, and originality of the manuscript.
Evaluate the soundness of methodology and analysis.
Flag issues of plagiarism, ethical misconduct, or data manipulation.
Submit reviews within the assigned 3 weeks, or notify editors promptly if more time is required.
Maintain confidentiality and not use any content for personal benefit.

Decision after Peer Review

Once the reviewers submit their comments, the handling editor may make one of the following decisions on the manuscript.

Decision Type	Description
Accept Without Revision	The manuscript meets all journal standards and requires no further modification.
Minor Revision	The manuscript is scientifically sound but needs limited textual or formatting changes.
Major Revision	Substantial improvements are needed in methodology, analysis, or clarity before reconsideration.
Reject (Resubmission Allowed)	The manuscript is not ready for publication but may be reconsidered after extensive revision and resubmission.
Reject (Final Decision)	The manuscript is unsuitable for the journal or fails to meet scientific or ethical standards.

Decision Criteria

Originality and contribution to the field
Relevance to journal scope
Soundness of research design and methodology
Clarity and structure of writing
Compliance with ethical standards (plagiarism, conflict of interest, consent)
Reviewer feedback and consensus

Communication of Decisions

All decisions are communicated to the corresponding author via the journal’s online system or official email.
Decision letters include the decision outcome.
Reviewer comments (anonymized).
Editorial summary (if applicable).
Next steps and resubmission guidelines.

Authors must receive clear reasoning for all major decisions, especially in rejections.

Manuscript Confidentiality and Transparency

All participants in the peer review process (editors, reviewers, staff) must:

Treat manuscripts as confidential documents during each stage of initial screening and peer review process.
Ensure decisions on the manuscript are recorded in the editorial management system for transparency and quality assurance.
Avoid sharing, discussing, or citing content prior to publication.
Securely delete manuscript copies after review completion.
Ensure screening outcomes are not influenced by author identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, or funding source.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Although the peer review process is double-blind, if a reviewer reasonably believes they can identify the authors (e.g., through subject matter, writing style, or self-citation patterns) and a potential conflict exists, they must decline an invitation if any of the following apply:

Collaboration or co-authorship with the author(s) within the past 3 years
Employment at the same institution as the author(s)
Financial, personal, or professional relationships that could bias judgment
Involvement in related competing research

All conflicts, even potential ones, must be disclosed immediately to the Handling Editor. The Editor-in-Chief may reassign the review to maintain impartiality.

Quality of Reviews

The Handling Editor evaluates each completed review for:

Depth and relevance of analysis
Constructive feedback (strengths and weaknesses)
Evidence-based comments supporting the recommendation
Professional tone and adherence to ethical guidelines

Editors may provide feedback to reviewers to promote continuous improvement. Exceptional reviewers may be recognized in an annual acknowledgment list or certificate.

Reviewer Recognition

To appreciate academic service, MnA may offer:

Review Certificate – issued after each review
Certificates of Reviewing Excellence - issued annually
Acknowledgment on the journal’s website - with reviewer consent
Eligibility for Editorial Board nomination after consistent, high-quality contributions

Record Keeping

All reviewer assignments, responses, and evaluations are documented within the editorial system, including:

Date of invitation and acceptance
Reviewer names and institutions
Review deadlines and completion dates
Quality assessment and feedback notes

These records ensure transparency, ethical traceability, and compliance with indexing standards.

Misconduct and Review Integrity

The journal takes peer review ethics seriously. Any of the following will result in removal from the reviewer pool and possible institutional notification:

Breach of confidentiality
Plagiarism or data misuse
Unprofessional or biased reviews
Falsified reviewer identities

All suspected cases are investigated following COPE Ethical Guidelines.

Post-Review Transparency

To enhance scholarly trust:

Accepted manuscripts may include reviewer acknowledgment (with consent).
Editors may publish review statistics (average review time, acceptance rate, etc.) annually.
Reviewers may request certificates recognizing their contributions.

Continuous Improvement

The editorial office regularly reviews the peer review process to:

Monitor reviewer performance and diversity
Improve efficiency and communication
Align with evolving publishing standards and technology

Peer Review Timeframes

See Under Table : Paper Publication Timeframe

Review Process Summary

Initial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor checks scope, quality, and ethical compliance.
Reviewer Assignment: Manuscript is sent to at least two experts.
Review Reports: Reviewers assess content and submit structured reports.
Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer feedback, the editor chooses one of the following: Accept as is, Minor revision, Major revision, Reject.
Author Notification: Authors receive anonymized feedback and must address all reviewer comments.
Re-Review (if needed): Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the same or new reviewers.
Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.