Peer Review Policy, Process, and Guidance

Chitkara University Publications (CUP) upholds the highest standards of academic excellence and integrity. All CUP journals follow a transparent and rigorous peer review policy designed to ensure the publication of high-quality, trustworthy, and relevant research.

Peer Review Model

All CUP journals use a double-blind peer review system, wherein both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the process.

Review Workflow

• Initial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board screens all submissions for scope, originality (with plagiarism checks), and basic requirements.
• Peer Review: Manuscripts passing the initial checks are sent to at least two independent peer reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
• Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer feedback and editorial assessment, the manuscript is either accepted, rejected, or returned to the authors for revision.
• Turnaround Time: Reviewers are typically given three weeks to complete their evaluations. Extensions are considered on request but may not exceed five weeks.

Editor Conflict of Interest Policy

Editors do not handle manuscripts:

• Authored by themselves, colleagues, or family members.
• Related to projects where they have a personal/professional interest.

Such submissions are reassigned to an independent editor to ensure an unbiased review.

Author Appeals

Authors may submit one formal appeal per manuscript if they believe a decision was made in error. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial committee in accordance with CUP’s Appeal Policy. All decisions on appeals are final.

Reviewer Guidelines

• Reviewers are selected based on expertise, track record, and impartiality.
• They are expected to follow COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
• All reviews must be objective, evidence-based, and respectful in tone.
• Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and maintain strict confidentiality.
• Reviewers should not use or share the manuscript content or assign reviews to others without prior editorial consent.

Generative AI Use in Peer Review

CUP prohibits reviewers from uploading manuscripts to generative AI tools for analysis or summary. If a reviewer uses such tools to aid in their assessment (e.g., for grammar or reference checks), this must be disclosed in the review with details on the tool and purpose of use.

Review of Special Issues

Special issues follow the same rigorous peer review process. While Guest Editors may coordinate reviews and recommend decisions, final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor, in alignment with CUP’s editorial and ethical policies.

Ensuring Reviewer Diversity

CUP is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion in peer review. Editors are encouraged to invite reviewers representing diverse demographics—across geographies, genders, career stages, and ethnic groups.

Reviewer Conduct & Assessment Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess:

• Key Contributions: Novelty and significance of results.
• Scientific Rigor: Soundness of methodology, data validity, and statistics.
• Clarity and Structure: Lucid writing, appropriate organization, and context.
• Conclusion Validity: Are claims supported by evidence?
• Ethical Soundness: Are human/animal ethics, funding disclosures, and conflicts addressed?

Reviewers should:

• Avoid personal comments.
• Support criticism with references or examples.
• Recommend improvements where appropriate.
• Flag ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, image manipulation) to the Editor confidentially.

Use of Reviewer Suggestions and Exclusions

Authors may suggest or exclude reviewers (up to two). Editors are not bound to follow these suggestions but may consider them after conflict checks.

Suggested reviewers should:

• Not be recent collaborators or from the same institution.
• Have identifiable affiliations (institutional email preferred) and ORCID or Scopus ID.

Efficiency and Courtesy

CUP values timely decisions. Reviewers are encouraged to adhere to deadlines. If a delay is anticipated, they must inform the editor so alternate arrangements can be made.

Contact and Ethics Oversight

Any concerns about the peer review process or reviewer conduct should be directed to the journal’s editorial office or CUP’s central publishing ethics team on chitkarauniversitypublications@chitkara.edu.in.