Iranian Review for UN Studies

Editorial Process and Peer Review

Before initiating the peer review process, the editor-in-chief conducts an initial evaluation of the quality and type of submitted manuscripts. Submissions that do not meet the journal's scientific standards will not proceed to review and will be rejected. The editor-in-chief also examines the readability and writing quality of the manuscript. If improvements are required in these areas, authors may be asked to revise their submissions accordingly.

While reviewers are kindly requested to provide their evaluations within one month using the review form, the peer review process typically takes an average of three months. During this period, the editor-in-chief maintains regular contact with reviewers through periodic reminders to ensure timely responses.

After the initial review, the editor-in-chief consults with reviewers regarding the scientific merit of the manuscript. If necessary, the he may request further review or revisions from the reviewers. Authors are required to address all reviewer comments meticulously and submit their responses promptly to the journal office.

The editor-in-chief reassesses the authors' responses to reviewer comments and sends the revised manuscript for final and comparative review by the reviewers. Upon completion of the entire review process, and in cases where the manuscript is deemed acceptable for publication, the editor-in-chief evaluates the reviewers’ comments. The final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript lies with the editorial board, which reviews and deliberates on the reviewers' feedback. Additionally, the editor-in-chief reserves the right to decline manuscripts that fail to meet the required standards during the review process. Therefore, the editorial board and editor-in-chief retain the authority to reject manuscripts identified as substandard during peer review.

 

Criteria for Manuscript Acceptance

Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:

• A valid research question or hypothesis, supported by a relevant theory addressing the research question.
• Clear and transparent methodology, with a well-defined study design and explicitly stated materials.
• Properly written and presented content, with figures and tables adhering to scientific standards and journal guidelines.
• Compliance with the journal's policies on writing style and ethical standards.
• Adequate referencing and thorough coverage of the relevant literature, establishing the manuscript's context within the existing body of knowledge.
• Strict adherence to the journal's author guidelines for formatting and referencing.

 

Criteria for Manuscript Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected at any stage—initial evaluation, peer review, or final approval—for the following reasons:

• The absence of a valid research question or hypothesis.
• Clear methodological errors in study design, data collection, or analysis.
• Non-compliance with the journal's editorial policies, including plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
• Inadequate writing quality or presentation, making precise and effective review by reviewers impossible.
• Failure to adhere to privacy guidelines, internationally recognized standards for research involving humans or animals, or the journal's ethical policies.
• Non-compliance with the journal's author guidelines, including the submission of falsified data or improperly manipulated images or figures.
• Incorrect or irrelevant references and literature, failing to reflect the current state of knowledge in the field.
• Evident inaccuracies or flaws in analysis, leading to misleading study conclusions.
• Exploration of pseudo-scientific research questions.