1. Scope of this policy

This policy applies to all journals published by OMR Publication, including:

• OpenMind Journal of Humanities, Arts & Creative Studies
• OpenMind Journal of Multidisciplinary Innovation & Development

It covers initial editorial screening, peer review models, editorial decision making, reviewer selection and responsibilities, handling of ethical complaints, corrections and retractions, appeals and post-publication processes.

2. Editorial Independence & Governance

• Editorial independence: Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scholarly merit, relevance to the journal, robustness of the research and ethical integrity. The publisher does not interfere in editorial decisions; editorial independence is guaranteed in our agreements with editors.
• Roles:
  • Editor-in-Chief — establishes editorial strategy, makes final decisions on manuscripts, appoints associate editors.
  • Associate / Section Editors — manage manuscripts in their subject area, select reviewers, and make recommendations.
  • Editorial Office — handles administrative tasks, submission triage, production handover, and ensures policy compliance.
  • Editorial Board — advises on scope and policy, contributes to peer review, and assists with strategy.

3. Editorial Board Selection & Diversity

• Selection criteria: Members are selected for expertise, publication record, editorial experience, and commitment to ethical publishing. Membership does not guarantee publication.
• Term & renewal: Typical terms are 2–4 years with the possibility of renewal.
• Diversity & inclusion: We actively seek geographic, gender, career stage and disciplinary diversity to reduce bias and improve global representation.
• Removal: Members who fail to meet responsibilities, have undisclosed COIs, or are implicated in misconduct may be removed following internal review.

4. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Triage)

• All submissions undergo an initial check by the editorial office or handling editor for: scope, conformity with Author Instructions, language/format, basic methodological soundness, and plagiarism screening (e.g., iThenticate).
• Manuscripts that clearly fall outside journal scope, are of insufficient scholarly quality, or show evidence of plagiarism/duplicate publication will be desk rejected with an explanation. Desk rejection is not a peer review decision and is issued to preserve reviewer resources.

5. Peer Review Model(s)

• Default model — Double-blind peer review: Reviewers do not know author identities, and authors do not see reviewer identities. Authors must anonymize manuscripts before submission.
• Alternative models (selected cases): Open peer review (identities revealed) or single-blind review may be used for special issues or with author/reviewer consent. Any deviation from the default model will be stated.
• Editorial review: Editors may solicit external peer review or make editorial decisions without external review for invited content, editorials, or policy pieces.

6. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

• Selection criteria: Chosen for subject expertise, publication history, absence of COI, and prior reviewing track record.
• Number of reviewers: Typically 2–3 independent expert reviewers are invited per manuscript.
• Conflicts of interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts and recuse themselves. Authors may suggest or exclude reviewers at submission, but the editor makes final selections.
• Invitation message: Includes title, abstract, timeline, review model, and instructions for confidentiality.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities & Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide timely, constructive, objective and courteous reports.
• Evaluate adherence to reporting standards (e.g., PRISMA, CONSORT).
• Identify relevant prior work the authors have not cited.
• Declare conflicts of interest and confidentiality obligations.
• Suggest improvements and, where appropriate, recommend additional experiments.
• Avoid using material in the manuscript for personal benefit before publication.

Suggested reviewer report structure (rubric):

• Summary of the manuscript (2–3 sentences).
• General assessment (originality, significance, fit to journal).
• Major concerns (methodological, ethical, interpretation).
• Minor comments (clarity, language, references, formatting).
• Recommendations (Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Reject).
• Confidential comments to the editor (optional).

8. Editorial Decision Types

After peer review and editorial consideration, possible decisions include:

• Accept as submitted: rare; manuscript requires no changes.
• Accept after minor revision: acceptable with small changes; author to respond to reviewer points.
• Revise & resubmit (major revision): manuscript requires substantial changes and new data/analyses. A new round of review may be required.
• Reject with invitation to resubmit: has potential but needs major rework amounting to a new submission.
• Reject: not suitable due to scope, quality, or ethical concerns.

9. Timelines & Expectations

• Initial editorial check: within 7–14 days.
• Time to first decision: variable — often depends on reviewer availability.
• Authors and reviewers are asked to adhere to requested timelines and notify the office proactively if delays are expected.

10. Conflicts of Interest (COI)

• Authors: Must disclose all financial/non-financial competing interests. If none exist, a statement “The authors declare no competing interests” is required.
• Editors and reviewers: Must recuse themselves from handling submissions where they have conflicts (e.g., recent collaborations, same institutions).

11. Ethical Oversight & Misconduct

• OMR Publication follows COPE guidelines. Actions for suspected misconduct may include corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.
• Plagiarism screening: All submissions are screened. High similarity scores require scrutiny and may lead to rejection.
• Investigations: Allegations are investigated confidentially and impartially.

12. Corrections & Retractions

• Corrections (Errata): Issued for honest errors affecting the record but not the validity of findings. Linked to the original article.
• Expressions of concern: Issued when editors have serious concerns pending investigation.
• Retractions: Issued for unreliable findings (misconduct, major error, unethical research). Retracted articles remain accessible but clearly marked.

13. Appeals & Complaints

• Appeals: Authors may appeal decisions in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days. Appeals are reviewed by a different editor/panel.
• Complaints: Complaints about editorial conduct should be sent to editorial@omrpublication.com.

14. Confidentiality & Data Protection

• Manuscripts and communications are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose content prior to publication.
• OMR Publication complies with applicable data protection laws for personal data collected during submission.

15. Handling Special Content

• Clinical trials: Must be registered; include CONSORT flow diagrams.
• Systematic reviews: Must follow PRISMA guidelines.
• Human participant research: Requires ethics approval and informed consent statements.