Peer Review Process

Every Research Article, Review Article and Short Communication submitted to QAIRU Journal is checked by the editorial office and then sent to independent reviewers. This page sets out the model, the stages, the timeline and the obligations of everyone involved.

Review model

Review is double-blind (double-anonymised). Authors do not learn the identity of the reviewers. Reviewers are not told who the authors are or where they work. Only the handling editor and the editorial office see both sides, and identities are not disclosed after publication.

Anonymity depends on the files the authors upload. A manuscript that identifies its authors is returned for correction before it goes out, which delays the first decision. Authors must:

• Upload a separate title page with the title, all authors, affiliations, ORCID identifiers and the details of the corresponding author. The main manuscript file carries none of this.
• Keep identifying statements out of the main file. Acknowledgements, funding, ethics approval numbers and institutional statements are entered in the submission form and restored to the article after acceptance.
• Phrase self-citations in the third person: "the method introduced in [4]", not "our earlier method [4]". Self-citations are not removed, only reworded.
• Anonymise links to data and code. Where the repository allows it, give an anonymous view-only link for review and the permanent link after acceptance. Where anonymisation is impossible, say so in the cover letter.
• Clear the file metadata of author names before uploading.

What is reviewed

Stages

1. Submission. The corresponding author uploads the manuscript, the title page and the declarations on conflicts of interest, funding, generative AI use and data availability.
2. Editorial and technical check. The editorial office verifies completeness, fit with the scope, formatting and reference style, the result of similarity screening, and the presence of all declarations.
3. Desk decision. The handling editor sends the manuscript for review or returns it without review as outside the scope, outside the requirements for the article type, or unsupported by sufficient evidence.
4. Reviewer selection. The handling editor invites reviewers with the required expertise and no conflict of interest.
5. Review. Reviewers assess the anonymised manuscript and return a written report with a recommendation.
6. Decision. The handling editor weighs the reports and writes to the author, attaching them in anonymised form.
7. Revision. The authors return a revised manuscript, a point-by-point response to every comment, and a marked copy of the changes.
8. Final decision. The handling editor decides on the revision and returns substantial revisions to the original reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision.
9. Production and publication. Copy-editing, typesetting, a proof to the corresponding author, a DOI registered with Crossref, and publication in immediate open access under CC BY 4.0.

Timeline

Extensions are granted on request made to the editorial office before the deadline expires. A revision returned late without an agreed extension may be handled as a new submission.

Number of reviewers and disagreement between reports

Every manuscript sent for review receives reports from at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers advise; the decision is taken by the handling editor, and the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision. Where the reports conflict, the handling editor either invites an additional reviewer or decides on the existing record, stating in the decision letter how the conflicting assessments were weighed.

Selection of reviewers

• documented expertise in the specific subject of the manuscript;
• a publication record in the field;
• no conflict of interest with the authors, the funders or the subject matter, as defined in Conflicts of Interest;
• no current employment or study at any of the authors' institutions;
• no recent co-authorship and no supervisory relationship with any author.

Reviewers suggested or opposed by the authors

Authors may suggest reviewers and may ask that named individuals be excluded. The editors are not bound by suggestions and verify the independence and affiliation of anyone suggested. A request to exclude a reviewer is honoured where the stated reason is credible and specific.

What a review report must contain

• a summary of what the manuscript claims to contribute;
• novelty, assessed against the published literature;
• the methods, and whether they support the conclusions drawn;
• the evidence: data, experiments, baselines, statistical treatment;
• reproducibility: whether the description, data and code would let an independent group repeat the work;
• clarity, structure and language;
• the references, including relevant work not cited and any substantial overlap with other work known to the reviewer;
• specific, actionable comments keyed to sections, pages or line numbers;
• confidential comments to the editor, where a concern should not go to the authors;
• a recommendation.

General statements without supporting detail are returned to the reviewer for completion.

Decisions

A recommendation to revise is not a commitment to publish. A revised manuscript may still be rejected.

Confidentiality

A submitted manuscript is a confidential document. Until publication, a reviewer must not share, quote, copy or distribute it, or use its content or data in their own work. Reviewers must not upload the manuscript, any part of it, or the report to a generative AI service or to any other third-party service: that places unpublished work beyond the control of the authors and the journal. See Generative AI Policy. A reviewer who wishes to consult a colleague asks the handling editor first and names that person. All copies are deleted once the report is submitted.

Reviewer conduct and conflicts of interest

Reviewers assess the work, not the authors; personal criticism is not acceptable. A reviewer who identifies a conflict of interest after accepting an invitation informs the editorial office and withdraws. See Conflicts of Interest and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Recognition of reviewers

Reviewing is unpaid. Once a year the journal publishes a list of the reviewers who worked for it during the preceding period. A name appears there only with the written consent of the reviewer, and the list does not connect any reviewer to any manuscript.

Appeals

An author may submit one written appeal against a decision, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief at journal@qairu.edu.kz. The appeal must identify the specific points in the reports or in the decision that the author considers factually wrong, and supply the evidence. It is examined by an editor who took no part in the original decision, and the outcome is final. See Editorial Policies.

Dates and transparency of the record

Every published article carries its submission, acceptance and publication dates. Reviewer reports are not published. Review is not open: reviewer identities are not revealed to the authors or to readers, before or after publication.

---

Effective date: 2026-09-01 · Version: 1.0 · Questions: journal@qairu.edu.kz