Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Ensuring Quality, Originality, Fairness and Academic Integrity

Shiksha Samvad is an International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research follows a systematic and impartial peer-review process to maintain the quality, originality, relevance and academic integrity of all published articles. Every submitted manuscript is evaluated on the basis of its scholarly merit, research methodology, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance and contribution to the relevant field of study.

Manuscript Review Workflow

1. Author Submits the Manuscript
↓
2. Initial Screening by the Chief Editor or Managing Editor
Scope, Format, Quality, Originality and Ethical Compliance
Suitable for Review
↓
Unsuitable or Non-Compliant
↓
Rejected or Returned to the Author
3. Manuscript Assigned to Peer Reviewers
Evaluation by at Least Two Qualified Subject Experts
↓
4. Review Reports Submitted to the Editor
Originality, Methodology, Analysis, Relevance and Presentation
↓
5. Editorial Decision
Accepted
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Rejected
↓
6. Revision and Resubmission by the Author
Point-by-Point Response to the Reviewers’ Comments
↓
7. Final Evaluation and Acceptance
↓
8. Article Published

Preliminary Editorial Screening

After submission, the editorial team examines the manuscript for relevance to the journal’s scope, completeness, formatting, language, originality and compliance with publication ethics. A manuscript that does not satisfy the basic requirements may be returned for correction or rejected before external peer review.

Peer-Reviewer Evaluation

Manuscripts considered suitable are sent to at least two qualified reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers assess the originality, objectives, methodology, analysis, interpretation, organization, references and academic contribution of the manuscript. All review reports are treated as confidential documents.

Revision and Final Decision

Authors receiving a revision request must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer’s comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further assessment. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection after considering the reviewers’ recommendations and the author’s revisions.

Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

Manuscripts, reviewer reports and editorial communications are treated confidentially. Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit, originality, relevance and ethical compliance. Decisions are not influenced by an author’s nationality, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, professional position or personal background.