Peer Review Policy

Purpose of Peer Review

Journal of Maritime Innovation and Sustainability (JMIS) uses a rigorous double-blinded peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another to the extent practicable, to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication.

Editorial Workflow

Each submission is first screened by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the Journal’s aims and scope and meets basic standards of quality, originality, presentation, and ethical compliance. Manuscripts that do not satisfy essential requirements may be returned to the authors or declined without external peer review. Manuscripts that pass the preliminary assessment are assigned to an appropriate editor, who evaluates their academic suitability and identifies qualified reviewers for independent peer review before a final editorial decision is made.

Review Process

The Journal normally follows a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Manuscripts are generally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality, research question, methodology, analysis, interpretation of findings, engagement with relevant literature, ethical compliance, and overall scholarly contribution. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and sufficiently detailed comments that assist the editor in reaching an informed decision and help authors improve their work.

Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Following peer review, the Editor may decide to accept the manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or reject the submission. Where revisions are requested, authors should respond carefully to reviewer comments and provide a clear explanation of the changes made or the reasons for any comments they do not adopt. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment when necessary. The final publication decision rests with the Editor and is based on the quality of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, editorial assessment, and the Journal’s publication standards.

Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use, share, reproduce, or disclose unpublished information obtained through the review process. They should declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and decline the review where impartiality may be compromised. They should not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage and should notify the editor if they are unable to provide an impartial assessment within the requested timeframe.

Reviews must be objective, respectful, and free from personal criticism. Reviewers should not delegate the review to another person or use generative AI tools to evaluate or process confidential manuscript content unless expressly permitted by the Journal. The Journal expects all participants in the peer review process to uphold the highest standards of confidentiality, independence, fairness, and research integrity.

Editorial Independence and Review Integrity

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, financial, institutional, or personal interests. Editors must not influence reviewers toward a predetermined outcome and should ensure that reviewer recommendations are considered fairly and consistently. Where necessary, the journal may appoint an alternative editor or seek additional independent reviews to protect the integrity of the decision-making process.

All manuscripts and peer-review materials are treated as confidential. The journal reserves the right to take appropriate action if there is evidence of manipulated peer review, fabricated reviewer identities, inappropriate communication with reviewers, or other conduct that compromises the integrity of the review process.

Author Requests to Include or Exclude Reviewers

Authors may, at the time of submission, provide the names of up to three individuals whom they believe would be particularly appropriate or inappropriate as reviewers. Such requests must be accompanied by a brief and legitimate academic justification where exclusion is requested.

The journal considers reviewer inclusion and exclusion requests but does not guarantee that they will be followed. The editorial team retains full discretion over reviewer selection and will not exclude a qualified reviewer solely because the reviewer is known to have a different academic opinion or has previously provided critical comments on the authors’ work.

Requests to exclude reviewers may be considered where there is a demonstrable conflict of interest, such as a close personal or professional relationship, current collaboration, institutional conflict, financial interest, or other circumstance that could reasonably compromise impartiality. Authors should not attempt to influence reviewer selection through unsupported allegations, personal disagreements, or requests to exclude recognized experts simply because they may be critical of the work.

The journal may decline an exclusion request where the proposed reviewer is considered essential because of their specialized expertise. Editors will independently assess potential conflicts and will take reasonable steps to ensure that peer review remains fair and unbiased.