Index Academic applies an editorial process based on academic evaluation, editorial independence, confidentiality, and respect for principles of integrity in research and publishing.

The purpose of the editorial process is to assess the relevance, originality, rigor, and quality of manuscripts and, through peer review, to contribute to the improvement of works accepted for publication.

Editorial Principles

Decisions concerning manuscripts are made exclusively on the basis of academic merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, and compliance with editorial and ethical requirements.

The authors’ origin, institutional affiliation, nationality, personal views, or other characteristics unrelated to the academic content of the work do not influence editorial decisions.

Publication in Index Academic is free of charge, and institutional, professional, or personal relationships must not influence the evaluation process or publication decisions.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Each manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a preliminary editorial assessment before peer review.

At this stage, particular attention is paid to:

  • its fit with the journal’s aims and scope;
  • the academic character and relevance of the contribution;
  • compliance with basic requirements concerning manuscript structure and presentation;
  • the general quality of writing;
  • the presence of the required bibliographic elements and metadata;
  • compliance with requirements concerning originality, citation, and research ethics;
  • any obvious issues that may prevent continuation of the editorial process.

The editorial team may ask the author to correct deficiencies before the manuscript is sent to reviewers.

A manuscript that is clearly outside the journal’s scope, does not meet minimum academic requirements, or presents major editorial or ethical problems may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

Peer Review Process

Index Academic uses a double-anonymous peer review system. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Authors must submit the manuscript in a form that allows anonymous review and must remove from the version intended for reviewers the names of authors, affiliations, and other information that could directly reveal their identity.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to two independent reviewers, selected according to their expertise in the relevant field.

Reviewers assess the manuscript and provide the editorial team with comments, recommendations, and an opinion regarding its suitability for publication.

If the reviewers’ reports differ significantly, or if the interdisciplinary nature of the manuscript requires additional expertise, the editorial team may seek the opinion of an additional reviewer.

Peer review is advisory in nature. Reviewers’ recommendations are an essential part of the editorial process, but the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the editorial team.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

  • expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript;
  • academic or professional experience;
  • ability to provide an objective evaluation;
  • absence of conflicts of interest that could affect the independence of the review.

The editorial team may use reviewers from its own network of collaborators or invite external specialists.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers where the submission system allows this. The editorial team is not required to use the suggested individuals, and the final selection of reviewers remains exclusively with the editors.

Review Criteria

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers are asked to assess:

  • relevance and importance of the topic;
  • originality of the contribution;
  • theoretical grounding;
  • appropriateness of the methodology;
  • validity of the arguments and conclusions;
  • engagement with relevant literature;
  • quality and currency of sources;
  • coherence of the structure;
  • clarity of expression;
  • consistency between objectives, methods, results, and conclusions;
  • compliance with applicable ethical requirements;
  • the overall contribution of the work to the field addressed.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, reasoned, and constructive comments intended both to support the editorial decision and to improve the manuscript.

Outcome of the Review

Following evaluation, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • acceptance;
  • acceptance subject to minor revisions;
  • major revision and re-evaluation;
  • rejection.

When revisions are requested, authors receive the relevant comments from reviewers and editors.

Authors must respond to the comments received and indicate the changes made or provide a reasoned explanation when they choose not to follow a particular recommendation.

Submission of a revised version does not guarantee acceptance.

Re-evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Depending on the extent of the requested changes, the revised version may be assessed directly by an editor or sent again to one or more reviewers.

For major revisions, the editorial team may request a new round of peer review.

The process may continue until the editorial team has sufficient information to make a well-founded editorial decision.

Final Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the editor responsible for the manuscript and, where necessary, by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editors take into consideration:

  • reviewers’ reports;
  • authors’ responses and revisions;
  • the academic quality of the final version;
  • compliance with journal policies;
  • any ethical or integrity issues identified during the review process.

A positive recommendation from a reviewer does not guarantee publication, just as an isolated negative recommendation does not automatically result in rejection.

Confidentiality of the Review Process

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use for personal benefit information, ideas, data, or results obtained from an unpublished manuscript.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors and must not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.

Likewise, authors must not attempt to identify the reviewers.

Review reports are used exclusively within the editorial process unless the author, reviewer, and journal explicitly agree to another form of use.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, personal, academic, or other relationship that could influence, or could reasonably be perceived as influencing, the objectivity of the evaluation.

A reviewer must decline the review when a relevant conflict of interest exists.

If a conflict of interest involves an editor, the manuscript is transferred to another member of the editorial team who is not involved in the situation.

Manuscripts Submitted by Members of the Editorial Team

Members of the editorial team may submit works for publication in Index Academic, but these are subject to the same requirements and evaluation criteria as all other manuscripts.

An editor who is an author or co-author of a manuscript:

  • does not participate in the editorial assessment of the work;
  • does not select the reviewers;
  • does not have access to confidential information that would provide an advantage over other authors;
  • does not participate in the final editorial decision.

Responsibility for the process is transferred to an editor without a conflict of interest.

Reviewer Independence

Reviewers provide independent recommendations and do not act as representatives of the authors, editors, their institutions, or other organizations.

Criticism must address the work and its arguments, not the person of the author.

Offensive, discriminatory, or academically irrelevant comments are not accepted.

Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

If a reviewer identifies possible issues such as plagiarism, redundant publication, data manipulation, inappropriate citation, breaches of ethical requirements, or other forms of misconduct, the reviewer must inform the editorial team.

The reviewer must not independently initiate an investigation and must not directly contact the author or the author’s institution regarding the concern.

The editorial team examines the situation in accordance with the journal’s policy on publication ethics and best practices.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe it was based on a factual error, incorrect interpretation, or significant procedural issue.

The appeal must be reasoned and must address specifically the grounds on which the decision was based.

Simple disagreement with reviewers’ opinions does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for overturning an editorial decision.

Where possible, the appeal is considered by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision. The decision reached after this review is final.

Standards and Best Practices

Index Academic seeks to apply international best practices concerning peer review, editorial independence, confidentiality, and management of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are encouraged to follow the principles of objectivity, confidentiality, competence, and disclosure of conflicts of interest recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Issues relating to plagiarism, authorship, the use of artificial intelligence, data integrity, corrections, and retractions are addressed on the Publication Ethics and Best Practices page.

[Publication Ethics and Best Practices →]
[Author Guidelines →]
[Editorial Team →]