Peer Review Process

Luxfia: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research [e-ISSN: xxxx-xxxx | p-ISSN: xxxx-xxxx] applies the Open Peer Review model to enhance transparency and trust in the scientific publication process. This process is conducted based on the following principles:

Transparent Reviewer Identity
Reviewer identities are disclosed to authors to encourage accountability and provide constructive feedback.
Open Review Reports
Review reports are published alongside the accepted article, allowing readers to understand the scientific evaluation process and assess the strengths and weaknesses identified by reviewers.
Interactive Review
Authors and reviewers may interact openly during the review process to foster collaboration and improve manuscript quality.
Reviewer Recognition
Reviewers have the option to sign their reviews and receive public acknowledgment for their contribution to the peer review process.
Ethical Standards
All parties involved in the review process are expected to follow ethical guidelines to ensure fairness, respect, and impartiality.

This Open Peer Review model aims to improve transparency, accountability, and the overall quality of the manuscript evaluation process for the benefit of authors, reviewers, and the broader academic community.

Key Features of Open Peer Review in This Journal:

Reviewer names are disclosed to authors.
Review reports are published together with accepted articles.
Authors and reviewers may interact directly during the review process.
Reviewers may choose to sign their reviews and receive public recognition.
The review process upholds ethics, fairness, and scientific integrity.
Editorial decisions and their rationale are shared openly with authors.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

Submission and Technical Check
After submission, the manuscript undergoes a technical check to ensure compliance with the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.
Initial Editorial Review
The editorial team reviews the manuscript to assess its relevance and suitability for the journal’s scope.
Editor Assignment
If deemed suitable, the manuscript is assigned to an editor who will manage the peer review process.
Reviewer Selection
The editor selects and invites reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. At least two reviewers are assigned.
Review Process
Reviewers provide detailed feedback on the quality, validity, and scientific contribution of the manuscript.
Author Revision
Based on reviewer feedback, authors may be asked to revise their manuscript. This process may involve several rounds until the manuscript is considered acceptable.
Final Decision
The editor makes the final decision based on reviewer recommendations and author revisions. Possible decisions include:
- Accepted without revision: The article will be published as submitted.
- Accepted with minor revisions: The article is accepted with small corrections required within a given time frame.
- Accepted with major revisions: The article will be accepted if significant improvements are made as directed by reviewers/editors.
- Resubmit (conditional rejection): The article may be reconsidered after major revisions.
- Rejected: The article will not be published or reconsidered.
Publication
Accepted manuscripts undergo final editing, formatting, and layout before being published online in the journal.