The International Journal of Property Sciences (IJPS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and promoting ethical research practices through its peer-review policy. This process is built on trust and requires all parties involved—authors, reviewers, and editors—to uphold the principles of responsibility, transparency, and ethical conduct.

Peer reviewers play an essential role in this process. To support reviewers in fulfilling their roles with integrity, IJPS adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which outline the core principles and best practices expected during the review process.

 

Type of Peer Review

The International Journal of Property Sciences (IJPS) employs a double-blind peer review process to uphold objectivity and impartiality in the evaluation of manuscripts. In this process, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other throughout and after the review. To facilitate this, authors are required to submit a title page—which includes full author details—separately from the main manuscript to ensure anonymity during the review process.

 

Reviewer Selection Process

Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise relevant to the content of the submitted manuscript. All submitted manuscripts are reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers, following which the editor will make the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.

 

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Literature Review and Citations: Relevant prior work is properly cited and critically integrated.
• Methodological Rigor: The research design is appropriate and methodologically sound.
• Clarity of Results: Results are clearly presented, supported by appropriate statistical analysis, and logically aligned with the conclusions.
• Originality: The manuscript demonstrates originality in thought, methodology, and data.
• Contribution: The study offers significant contributions to knowledge and advances the field.

While language editing is not a core component of the peer-review process, reviewers are encouraged to suggest improvements in language and style where appropriate. During the final editorial stage, the editor will assess the manuscript for linguistic and stylistic clarity. Minor corrections may be made or recommended. In rare cases, the author(s) may be asked to undertake thorough proofreading or extensive language revisions before final acceptance.

 

Peer Review Process

Upon receiving an email invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers are requested to respond promptly by clicking the provided link to indicate their availability. If willing to review, the reviewer should proceed with the steps outlined on the journal’s submission platform.

Reviewers may provide their feedback by either:

• Completing the “Reviewer Form” section directly on the platform, or
• Uploading a separate file containing their detailed review comments.

Following the review, each reviewer is required to make an initial recommendation by selecting one of the following options:

• Accept Submission
  The manuscript meets the journal’s standards and is ready to proceed to the copyediting and publication stage.
• Revisions Required
  Minor revisions are needed. The manuscript may be re-reviewed or assessed directly by the editor upon revision.
• Resubmit for Review
  Major revisions are necessary. A substantially revised manuscript must be resubmitted for a new round of peer review.
• Resubmit Elsewhere
  The manuscript does not align with the journal’s scope or standards and is better suited for a different publication.
• Decline Submission
  The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to significant weaknesses in content, methodology, or originality.
  
  
  

Duration of Review Process

The duration of the review process largely depends on the timeliness of reviewers' responses. On average, the peer-review process is expected to take approximately 1 to 2 months from the date of invitation acceptance.

 

Final Decision

Based on the reviewer comments and their recommendations, as well as the revisions submitted by the author(s), the editor will make the final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript. The entire review process is conducted in strict confidentiality to maintain the integrity and objectivity of the evaluation.