Peer Review Process

Quality Assurance

Peer Review Process

Ensuring academic excellence through a rigorous and transparent evaluation system.

QUALITATIVE STUDIES employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality, originality, and relevance. In this system, both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process, ensuring objectivity and fairness. Every submitted manuscript undergoes a thorough assessment by at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

1. Review Process Flow

The peer review process follows these sequential stages:

1
Submission & Initial Screening
The manuscript is submitted through the OJS platform. The editorial team conducts an initial check for compliance with author guidelines, formatting requirements, scope relevance, and plagiarism screening (maximum similarity index: 20%).
2
Editorial Evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor evaluates the manuscript's suitability for the journal. Manuscripts that do not meet basic quality standards or fall outside the journal's scope may be desk-rejected at this stage.
3
Reviewer Assignment
The manuscript is sent to at least two expert reviewers selected based on their expertise and alignment with the manuscript's topic. Reviewers are given 2–3 weeks to complete their evaluation.
4
Peer Review Evaluation
Reviewers assess the manuscript based on originality, methodological soundness, theoretical contribution, clarity of argument, and relevance to the journal's scope. They provide detailed feedback and a recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject).
5
Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor makes a final decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Authors are notified with the reviewers' comments.
6
Revision by Authors
If revision is required, authors are given 2–4 weeks to address the reviewers' comments. A detailed response letter must accompany the revised manuscript, explaining how each comment was addressed.
7
Final Evaluation & Acceptance
The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for verification. Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading.
8
Publication
The final version is published online with a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and made freely accessible to readers worldwide under the CC BY 4.0 license.

2. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality & Novelty
Does the study present new insights, perspectives, or contributions to the field?
Methodological Rigour
Is the qualitative methodology appropriate, well-described, and properly executed?
Theoretical Contribution
Does the study engage meaningfully with existing literature and theory?
Clarity & Coherence
Is the manuscript well-organised, clearly written, and logically structured?
Relevance to Scope
Does the study align with the journal's focus on qualitative research?
Ethical Compliance
Are ethical considerations properly addressed (consent, anonymity, etc.)?

3. Estimated Timeline

The typical duration of the peer review process is as follows:

Initial Screening & Editorial Evaluation 1–2 weeks
Peer Review by Reviewers 2–4 weeks
Editorial Decision 1 week
Author Revision 2–4 weeks
Final Evaluation & Acceptance 1–2 weeks
Copyediting, Typesetting & Publication 2–4 weeks

Note: The total duration from submission to publication typically ranges from 8 to 16 weeks, depending on the complexity of revisions and reviewer availability.

4. Reviewer Ethics & Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following ethical principles:

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents and not shared or discussed with others without the editor's permission.
  • Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted fairly, without personal bias related to the author's gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or institutional affiliation.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based feedback that helps authors improve their work.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists (e.g., recent collaboration, personal relationship, or direct competition with the authors).
  • Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor promptly if an extension is needed.

5. Revision Policy

Authors receiving a request for revision must submit:

  • A revised manuscript with changes clearly highlighted or tracked.
  • A response letter addressing each reviewer's comment point-by-point, indicating how the comment was addressed or providing justification if a suggestion was not adopted.

Failure to respond adequately to reviewers' comments may result in rejection of the manuscript.

Our Commitment to Quality

QUALITATIVE STUDIES is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarly excellence. Our peer review process is designed to be fair, transparent, and constructive, supporting authors in producing impactful research that contributes meaningfully to the global discourse on qualitative inquiry.