Peer Review Process

International Journal of Hydrological and Environmental for Sustainability (IJHES) [e-ISSN: 2828-5050 & p-ISSN:2828-6405] is a double‑blind peer‑reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to IJHES for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility for the papers. The peer review at IJHES proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows:

  1. Submission of Paper The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). To facilitate authors, IJHES temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.

  2. Editorial Office Assessment The submitted paper is first assessed by the IJHES editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable for the journal's focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure it includes the required sections and formatting. An initial quality assessment is also conducted, including a Turnitin check to evaluate the similarity index and detect potential plagiarism.

  3. Appraisal by the Editor‑in‑Chief The Editor‑in‑Chief evaluates whether the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, and significant for publication. Papers that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without further review.

  4. Invitation to Reviewers The handling editor sends invitations to reviewers based on their expertise, research interests, and absence of conflicts of interest. IJHES employs a double‑blind peer review process to ensure impartiality—reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and vice versa.

  5. Response to Invitations Invited reviewers assess the request based on their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. If declining, they may suggest alternative reviewers.

  6. Review is Conducted Reviewers read the paper thoroughly, often multiple times, and prepare a detailed, point‑by‑point evaluation. They then submit a recommendation: accept, reject, or request revisions (major or minor).

  7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews The Editor‑in‑Chief and handling editor review all feedback before making a final decision. If reviews are significantly divergent, an additional reviewer may be consulted.

  8. The Decision is Communicated The editor sends a decision letter to the author, including anonymous reviewer comments. Reviewers are also informed of the outcome.

  9. Final Steps If accepted, the paper proceeds to copy-editing. If revisions are required, the author is expected to revise the manuscript based on reviewer feedback and resubmit. For major revisions, the revised paper may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers. For minor revisions, the editor may conduct the final review. Once approved, the paper is published online and made freely available as a downloadable PDF.