Peer Review Policy


The Peer Review Policy for "Qualitative Research Review Letter" outlines the guidelines and procedures for the peer review process of submissions to our journal. Peer review is an essential component of scholarly publishing that ensures the quality and integrity of the research we publish. This policy aims to maintain rigorous standards while fostering constructive feedback and collaboration among authors and reviewers.

  1. Peer Review Process:
  • Upon receipt of a submission, the editorial team will conduct an initial assessment to ensure that it aligns with the scope and focus of the journal.
  • Submissions meeting the initial criteria will be assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter.
  • Reviewers will evaluate submissions based on criteria such as originality, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, clarity of presentation, and significance to the field.
  • Reviewers will provide constructive feedback and recommendations to authors to improve the quality of their manuscripts.
  • The editorial team will consider the reviewers' comments and make a decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the submission.
  1. Reviewer Selection:
  • 1 Reviewers will be selected based on their expertise, experience, and knowledge of the subject matter.
  • 2 The editorial team will strive to maintain a diverse pool of reviewers to ensure comprehensive and fair evaluations of submissions.
  • 3 Reviewers' identities will remain anonymous to the authors to ensure impartiality and eliminate potential conflicts of interest.
  1. Reviewer Guidelines:
  • 1 Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback on submissions.
  • 2 Reviewers should maintain confidentiality regarding the content of the manuscripts and refrain from discussing or sharing them with others.
  • 3 Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may compromise their ability to provide an impartial review.
  • 4 Reviewers should adhere to ethical standards and avoid any form of discrimination, bias, or plagiarism in their assessments.
  1. Editorial Decision:
  • 1 The editorial team will consider the reviewers' comments, recommendations, and the overall quality of the submission in making a decision.
  • 2 Authors will be informed of the editorial decision along with the reviewers' comments to facilitate revisions or appeals if necessary.
  • 3 The editorial team reserves the right to reject submissions that do not meet the journal's standards or are deemed unsuitable for publication.
  1. Appeals and Complaints:
  • 1 Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe there are substantive errors or biases in the review process.
  • 2 Appeals should be submitted in writing to the editorial office, along with supporting evidence or rationale for reconsideration.
  • 3 Complaints regarding the conduct of reviewers or the editorial process should also be directed to the editorial office for investigation and resolution.