Peer Review Process

Double-Blind Peer Review

Ẹ̀dá Journal operates a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

Every submission first undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine its relevance to the journal, conformity with submission requirements, originality, basic scholarly quality, and ethical suitability. The journal aims to complete this initial evaluation within approximately two weeks of receipt.

Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements are normally evaluated by two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers are selected according to their scholarly competence, research experience, independence, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. Where two reviews differ substantially, the editor may seek a third review or make a reasoned editorial determination.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision
• Accept subject to minor revision
• Revise and resubmit for further consideration
• Major revision and further review
• Reject

Acceptance is not final until all required revisions, declarations, formatting corrections, and editorial conditions have been satisfactorily completed. Under normal circumstances, the journal aims to complete the process from submission to publication within approximately four months.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe there has been a factual error, procedural irregularity, or serious misunderstanding of the manuscript. Appeals must specifically address the editorial and reviewer comments.

The Editor-in-Chief's decision following consideration of an appeal is final.