Peer Review Policy

1. Overview
The Multidisciplinary Research in Computing Information Systems (MRCIS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity, originality, and scholarly quality. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated fairly and impartially by subject-matter experts.

2. Types of Peer Review
MRCIS uses the double-blind review model, where both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other to eliminate bias and maintain objectivity.

3. Review Process Steps

• Initial Editorial Screening: Each submission is screened by the editorial office to ensure it aligns with the journal’s scope, formatting, and ethical guidelines.

• Plagiarism Check: Manuscripts are checked using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate).

• Assignment to Reviewers: Suitable experts in the field are invited to review the paper. Typically, two to three independent reviewers are assigned.

• Review Timeframe: Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within 2 to 4 weeks.

• Reviewer Evaluation Criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Methodological soundness

  • Clarity and coherence of writing

  • Proper referencing and ethical standards

4. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ comments, the editorial team may decide to:

• Accept the manuscript

• Accept with minor revisions

• Request major revisions

• Reject the manuscript

Authors will receive the consolidated reviewer feedback, along with the editor’s decision and suggestions for improvement, if applicable.

5. Revision and Resubmission
Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments within the specified deadline (usually 2 to 3 weeks). The revised submission may be returned to the same reviewers or evaluated by the editorial board.

6. Reviewer Anonymity and Confidentiality
All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose manuscript details outside the peer review process.

7. Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback

• Declare any conflict of interest

• Maintain confidentiality

• Report any unethical practices such as plagiarism or data fabrication

8. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal in writing to the editorial office with a detailed justification. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editorial board member.

9. Recognition of Reviewers
MRCIS acknowledges the vital contribution of peer reviewers by providing certificates of reviewing and listing reviewers annually (with their consent) on the journal’s website.