Peer Review Policy
Navkosh Journal: Journal of Immersive Learning, AI and Digital Media
At Navkosh Journal, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, transparent, and ethical Double-Blind Peer Review process. Every manuscript is evaluated solely on its academic merit, originality, methodological quality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
1. Submission of Manuscript
Authors should submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. Until the online submission portal is fully operational, manuscripts may be submitted via email.
Submission Email: editor@navkoshjournal.com
Authors are requested to prepare their manuscripts according to the Author Guidelines before submission.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial assessment to ensure that the manuscript:
- Falls within the scope of the journal.
- Follows the journal’s formatting requirements.
- Meets publication ethics standards.
- Is complete with all required sections.
- Demonstrates originality and academic quality.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or declined without external review.
3. Editor-in-Chief Evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief performs a preliminary evaluation of the manuscript. At this stage, manuscripts may be rejected if they:
- Fall outside the journal’s scope.
- Exhibit plagiarism or duplicate publication.
- Lack originality or scientific contribution.
- Fail to meet ethical standards.
Suitable manuscripts are assigned to an Associate Editor based on the subject area.
4. Double-Blind Peer Review
Navkosh Journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers possessing expertise in the relevant field.
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:
- Originality and innovation
- Scientific and methodological quality
- Relevance to the journal
- Clarity of presentation
- Validity of results
- Quality of references
- Overall contribution to knowledge
5. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- Maintain confidentiality.
- Declare any conflicts of interest.
- Provide objective, constructive, and timely reviews.
- Recommend improvements where necessary.
- Evaluate manuscripts fairly without personal bias.
6. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Associate Editor recommends a decision to the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision.
Possible decisions include:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Where reviewer opinions differ significantly, the Editor-in-Chief may seek an additional independent review.
7. Revision Process
Authors receiving revision requests should submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation if necessary.
8. Publication Ethics
Navkosh Journal adheres to the ethical principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The journal does not tolerate:
- Plagiarism
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Duplicate submission
- Image manipulation
- Citation manipulation
- Authorship disputes
Any ethical misconduct may result in immediate rejection or retraction of the published article.
9. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.
10. Final Acceptance and Publication
After acceptance, manuscripts undergo:
- Copyediting
- Language editing
- Layout and typesetting
- Author proof approval
- Online publication
Authors will receive page proofs for final approval before publication.
11. Open Access Policy
Navkosh Journal is an Open Access journal. All published articles are freely available to readers worldwide without subscription or access charges.
12. Review Timeline
The journal aims to complete the editorial process within the following timeframes:
| Stage | Estimated Time |
|---|---|
| Initial Editorial Screening | 3–5 Days |
| Peer Review | 2–4 Weeks |
| Revision by Authors | 1–3 Weeks |
| Final Editorial Decision | 5–7 Days |
| Online Publication | Within 7–10 Days after Acceptance |
The timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
13. Peer Review Workflow
Manuscript Submission
↓
Initial Editorial Screening
↓
Editor-in-Chief Evaluation
↓
Assignment to Associate Editor
↓
Double-Blind Peer Review (Minimum Two Reviewers)
↓
Editorial Decision
(Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject)
↓
Author Revision (if required)
↓
Final Decision by Editor-in-Chief
↓
Copyediting & Proofreading
↓
Online Publication