Peer Review Process

The Paradigm Chronicle

A Structured, Confidential and Independent System of Scholarly Evaluation

Beginning the Editorial Process

The review process begins when an author submits a manuscript to The Paradigm Chronicle through the journal's prescribed submission system. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript is complete, original, appropriately referenced and prepared according to the journal's author guidelines and publication-ethics requirements.

Submission of a manuscript does not automatically guarantee external peer review or publication. Every manuscript must first satisfy the journal's preliminary editorial requirements before being forwarded to independent reviewers.

Initial Assessment before External Review

After submission, the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor or an authorised member of the Editorial Committee conducts an initial examination to determine whether the manuscript satisfies the journal's fundamental scholarly, technical and ethical requirements.

✓ Scope: The manuscript should be relevant to the journal's academic, multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary scope.

✓ Originality: The manuscript should represent original scholarly work and may be subjected to similarity screening and editorial examination.

✓ Academic Quality: The study should possess a clearly identifiable scholarly purpose and meaningful academic contribution.

✓ Format: The manuscript should substantially comply with the journal's submission and formatting requirements.

✓ Completeness: Essential manuscript sections, references, author information and declarations should be appropriately provided.

✓ Ethical Compliance: Relevant requirements concerning authorship, plagiarism, research ethics, conflicts of interest and other publication matters should be satisfied.

A manuscript that is clearly outside the journal's scope, seriously deficient in academic quality, inadequately prepared or inconsistent with fundamental publication-ethics requirements may be returned for correction or rejected before external peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Selection of Qualified Subject Experts

Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are ordinarily assigned to at least two qualified reviewers with relevant subject knowledge, research experience or methodological expertise.

Reviewer selection may take into account academic specialisation, methodological competence, research experience, suitability for the subject matter and the absence of significant conflicts of interest.

For interdisciplinary manuscripts, reviewers from different academic backgrounds may be invited where additional expertise is necessary to provide a balanced and sufficiently comprehensive assessment.

What Reviewers Evaluate

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to scholarly criteria appropriate to the relevant discipline and type of contribution. Depending upon the nature of the manuscript, evaluation may include the following:

Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Review

Protection of Unpublished Scholarly Material

Submitted manuscripts, review reports, unpublished research information and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential scholarly material. Reviewers and editors should not disclose manuscript content to unauthorised individuals.

Unpublished ideas, data, arguments, findings, methods or interpretations obtained through peer review must not be used for personal research, competitive advantage, financial benefit or another unauthorised purpose.

The duty of confidentiality continues after completion of the review process regardless of whether the manuscript is accepted, revised, withdrawn or rejected.

Maintaining Independent Scholarly Judgement

Reviewers should disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, academic, competitive or collaborative relationship that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, the impartiality of their assessment.

Where a significant conflict exists, a reviewer should normally decline the assignment or inform the Editorial Office so that the Editor can determine whether an alternative reviewer should be appointed.

Editors should likewise avoid handling manuscripts where their own interests or relationships could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, editorial independence.

Submission of Reviewer Reports

Decision after Peer Review

After receiving the reviewer reports, the responsible Editor assesses the manuscript together with the reviewers' recommendations. Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully but remain advisory and do not automatically determine publication.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or authorised Editorial Committee after consideration of reviewer reports, manuscript quality, revisions, ethical compliance and relevant journal policies.

Responding to Reviewer Comments

Authors receiving a revision decision should carefully address the substantive observations made by reviewers and editors. A revised manuscript should ordinarily be accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how the relevant comments have been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they may provide a respectful and academically reasoned explanation. Authors are not expected to accept every suggestion mechanically, but significant concerns should be adequately considered and addressed.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. Depending upon the nature and extent of the revisions, the manuscript may be evaluated by the Editor or returned to the original or additional reviewers for further assessment.

Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

Research and Publication Integrity

If possible plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, unethical research, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest or another significant integrity concern is identified during peer review, the matter should be reported confidentially to the Editor.

Such concerns may lead to requests for clarification, supporting documentation, additional editorial examination or temporary suspension of the review process while the issue is assessed.

An allegation should not automatically be regarded as proof of misconduct. Where appropriate, authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to provide clarification or supporting evidence before serious editorial conclusions are reached.

Human Responsibility in Scholarly Evaluation

Peer review requires independent human scholarly judgement. Reviewers remain responsible for the reasoning, assessment, comments and recommendations contained in their review reports.

Confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data or identifiable manuscript material should not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative artificial-intelligence systems or external services where confidentiality, privacy, data security or retention arrangements cannot be adequately assured.

Artificial-intelligence tools must not replace the independent disciplinary expertise, critical reasoning and professional judgement expected from qualified reviewers or responsible editors.

Final Evaluation and Acceptance

From Acceptance to Publication

After final acceptance, the manuscript enters the production stage. This may include copyediting, formatting, proofreading, preparation of metadata and other technical checks necessary for publication.

Authors may be requested to examine proofs and correct production errors before the article is formally published. Substantial new changes to the research after acceptance may require further editorial consideration.

Publication does not prevent the journal from examining credible ethical or scholarly concerns that may subsequently arise in relation to a published article.