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 and editorial board members.
  • 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 journal promotion and strategy.

3. Editorial board selection, term and diversity

• Selection criteria: Members are selected for expertise, publication record, editorial experience, and commitment to ethical publishing. Editorial board membership does not guarantee publication.
• Term & renewal: Typical terms are 2–4 years with the possibility of renewal. Terms and role expectations are communicated upon appointment.
• 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 conflicts of interest or are implicated in misconduct may be removed following an 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 or equivalent).
• 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 (remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements and identifying metadata from the main manuscript file). A separate title page with author information is submitted as a non-anonymous file.
• 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 in the journal’s front matter or in the individual article’s metadata.
• Editorial review: Editors may solicit external peer review or make editorial decisions without external review for invited content, editorials, or policy pieces. The decision type will be made transparent in the article metadata where applicable.

6. Reviewer selection and invitation

• Selection criteria: Reviewers are chosen for subject expertise, publication history, absence of conflicts of interest and prior reviewing track record. We aim to use international and diverse reviewer pools.
• Number of reviewers: Typically 2–3 independent expert reviewers are invited per manuscript, supplemented by an associate editor’s assessment.
• Conflicts of interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts (personal, financial, institutional) and recuse themselves if a conflict exists. Authors may suggest or exclude reviewers at submission, but the editor makes the final selection.
• Invitation message: Invitations include manuscript title, abstract, expected timeline, review model (double-blind), and instructions for confidentiality and COI declaration.

7. Reviewer responsibilities & guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

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

Suggested reviewer report structure (rubric):

1. Summary of the manuscript (2–3 sentences).
2. General assessment (originality, significance, fit to journal).
3. Major concerns (methodological, ethical, interpretation).
4. Minor comments (clarity, language, references, formatting).
5. Recommendations (Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Reject).
6. Confidential comments to the editor (optional).
7. A short numerical scoring (optional) across: Originality (1–5), Methods (1–5), Clarity (1–5), Ethical standards (1–5), Overall recommendation.

8. Editorial decision types

After peer review and editorial consideration, possible decisions include:

• Accept as submitted — rare; manuscript requires no changes (usually after revision rounds).
• 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 or analyses may be requested. A new round of review may be required.
• Reject with invitation to resubmit — the manuscript has potential but needs major rework that amounts to a new submission.
• Reject — manuscript not suitable for publication due to scope, quality, or ethical concerns.

Editors will provide clear guidance in decision letters and require point-by-point responses to reviewer comments for revisions.

9. Timelines & expectations

• We strive for efficient processing but do not compromise review quality. Typical milestones (indicative, not guaranteed):
  • Initial editorial check: within 7–14 days.
  • Time to first decision (post peer review): variable — often depends on reviewer availability. Authors should consult the journal’s site for current averages.
• Authors and reviewers are asked to adhere to requested timelines and to notify the editorial office proactively if delays are expected.

10. Conflicts of interest (COI)

• Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial competing interests in the manuscript and the submission form. If none exist, a statement “The authors declare no competing interests” is required.
• Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves from handling or reviewing submissions where they have conflicts (e.g., recent collaborations, same institutions, financial interests). Editorial staff will assign an alternative editor when a conflict is declared.

11. Ethical oversight, research integrity & misconduct

• OMR Publication follows COPE guidelines for handling suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, unethical research). Actions may include corrections, expressions of concern, retractions and notification of institutions or funders.
• Plagiarism screening: All submissions are screened using similarity detection tools. High similarity scores require editorial scrutiny and may lead to rejection.
• Investigations: Allegations are investigated confidentially and impartially; authors and institutions are given an opportunity to respond. Final outcomes are recorded and communicated with reasons.

12. Corrections, expressions of concern & retractions

• Corrections (Errata/Corrections): Issued for honest errors that affect the record but not the validity of findings. Linked to the original article and preserved with DOI.
• Expressions of concern: Issued when editors have serious concerns pending an investigation.
• Retractions: Issued for findings that are unreliable due to misconduct or major error, redundant publication, or unethical research. Retraction notices explain the reason and are linked to the original article. Retracted articles remain accessible but clearly marked. All actions follow COPE best practices.

13. Appeals & complaints

• Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of decision (include reasons and any supporting evidence). Appeals are reviewed by a different editor or an appeals panel; new external reviewers may be consulted. Appeals do not guarantee reversal.
• Complaints: Complaints about editorial conduct or process should be sent to the editorial office (editorial@omrpublication.com). Serious complaints will be investigated independently.

14. Confidentiality & data protection

• Manuscripts and communications are confidential. Editors, reviewers and staff must not disclose manuscript content prior to publication. Exceptions include legal requests or ethical investigations.
• OMR Publication complies with applicable data protection laws for personal data collected during submission and review. Personal data are used only for editorial and publishing purposes.

15. Data, code and reproducibility

• Reviewers and editors will evaluate whether authors provide sufficient data, code and methodological detail to reproduce the main findings.
• Authors are encouraged (and where required) to deposit datasets, code and materials in public repositories (Zenodo recommended) and include a Data Availability Statement. Failure to provide required data may affect editorial decisions and indexing eligibility.

16. Handling special content

• Clinical trials: Must be registered and authors must include CONSORT flow diagrams and trial registration numbers.
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Must follow PRISMA and provide full search strategies and data extraction details.
• Human participant research: Requires ethics approval and informed consent statements. Identifiable participant data requires explicit consent for publication.

17. Post-publication processes

• Corrections and comments: Post-publication comments, letters to the editor, and corrections are welcomed and handled per journal policy. Authors may be asked to respond publicly.
• Post-publication peer review: Where appropriate, post-publication peer review or open commentary may be facilitated; major post-publication concerns may trigger further investigation.
• Versioning: If substantive changes are made after publication (e.g., corrected analyses), updated versions are published with clear version history and DOIs that link back to the original.

18. Transparency & reporting

• OMR Publication requires authors to supply complete metadata (author names & ORCIDs, affiliations, funding, keywords, data availability, declarations) to support discoverability, indexing and compliance checks.
• We publish clear editorial policies, peer review model, and any fees (APCs & waivers) publicly on journal and publisher pages to support indexing assessments.

19. Reviewer recognition & incentives

• We provide formal recognition for reviewers such as reviewer certificates on request, optional acknowledgement in the journal (where reviewers consent), and guidance for linking reviews to reviewer recognition services (e.g., Publons/Reviewer Credits) where available. Reviewers may also be offered APC discounts or fee waivers at the publisher’s discretion.

20. Transparency statement about indexing aspirations

• OMR Publication prepares journals with policies, metadata and archiving practices that support future applications to indexing services (DOAJ, Scopus, Web of Science). Indexing is conditional on meeting indexers’ criteria; a clear editorial record, ethical transparency, regular publication schedule, and long-term archiving strengthen applications.

21. Records retention

• Editorial records (reviews, decision letters, correspondence) are retained for a minimum period to allow investigation of complaints or misconduct and to support archival requirements. Access to records is restricted to staff and appointed editors.

22. Contact & reporting

For questions about peer review or to report concerns about editorial processes, contact:
Editorial Office — OMR Publication
Email: editorial@omrpublication.com
Phone: +91 91264 31439
Postal: Udmari, Hojai, Assam, 782440, India

23. Policy review

This Peer Review & Editorial Policy will be reviewed periodically (at least every two years) and updated as best practices evolve. Any substantive changes will be posted on the journal website with the effective date.