Modern Multidisciplinary Research Review follows a structured and independent peer-review process to support academic quality, impartial evaluation, originality, methodological reliability, and research integrity.
Modern Multidisciplinary Research Review (MMRR) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review policy for research manuscripts submitted for publication. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance of each manuscript before an editorial decision is made.
Under the double-blind model, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. This confidentiality is intended to reduce personal, institutional, geographical, professional, or reputational influence on the evaluation process.
Peer review provides expert recommendations to the editorial team but does not itself determine publication. The final decision remains with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor acting in accordance with the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.
Reviewers receive an anonymized version of the manuscript from which author names, affiliations, contact details, acknowledgements, and other directly identifying information should be removed.
Reviewer names and identifying details are treated as confidential and are not disclosed to the authors unless disclosure is specifically permitted under an applicable journal procedure.
The editorial office examines the submission for completeness, required files, author information, manuscript structure, references, declarations, formatting, and compliance with the journal’s submission requirements.
The manuscript is assessed for relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, academic quality, originality, clarity, ethical compliance, methodological suitability, and potential contribution to the journal’s multidisciplinary readership.
The submission may be examined using similarity-detection software and editorial checks. A similarity report is interpreted by the editorial team and is not treated as automatic proof of plagiarism. Improper attribution, substantial unattributed overlap, duplicate publication, or manipulated text may result in rejection or further investigation.
Manuscripts passing preliminary screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with suitable subject knowledge, research experience, and methodological expertise. Reviewer selection considers expertise, independence, availability, and potential competing interests.
Reviewers independently examine the manuscript and submit confidential comments, recommendations, and constructive feedback. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the work objectively, respectfully, and within the agreed review period.
When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a clear point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed. Authors should justify any recommendation they have not followed.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the handling editor. Major revisions generally require further assessment to confirm whether the identified academic, methodological, or reporting concerns have been adequately resolved.
The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical requirements, and editorial standards before issuing the final decision.
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts using criteria appropriate to the discipline, study design, and article type. Assessment may include:
Following editorial and peer-review assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to final editorial and production checks.
Limited corrections or clarifications are required before final acceptance can be considered.
Substantial changes, additional analysis, or detailed responses are required before further evaluation.
The manuscript does not sufficiently meet the journal’s academic, ethical, methodological, or scope requirements.
A request for revision does not constitute acceptance. Revised manuscripts remain subject to editorial examination, further peer review where required, and a final publication decision.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for protecting the independence, consistency, fairness, and integrity of the editorial decision-making process. Decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, reviewer assessments, ethical compliance, and the overall quality of the manuscript.
Where reviewer recommendations conflict, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may obtain an additional review, seek specialist advice, or independently assess the manuscript before making a decision. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author’s nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal identity, professional status, or unrelated beliefs.
The journal seeks to complete the initial peer-review process within approximately two to six weeks after a manuscript has passed editorial screening and suitable reviewers have accepted the review invitation.
This timeframe is indicative and not guaranteed. The actual review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, subject specialization, manuscript length and complexity, the need for additional reviewers, revision requirements, ethical inquiries, and the responsiveness of authors and reviewers.
The journal does not compromise the quality or independence of peer review merely to achieve a faster publication decision.
| Participant | Confidentiality Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Editors | Must protect manuscript content, author information, reviewer identities, reports, correspondence, and editorial records from unauthorized disclosure. |
| Reviewers | Must treat the manuscript as confidential, avoid sharing or using unpublished material, and securely dispose of review copies after completing the assignment. |
| Authors | Must not attempt to identify, contact, influence, or retaliate against reviewers and must respect confidential editorial communications. |
| Editorial Staff | Must access manuscript and reviewer information only where required for legitimate editorial and publication responsibilities. |
Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, academic, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationship that could influence—or reasonably be perceived to influence—their assessment.
A reviewer should decline the assignment when they cannot provide an impartial evaluation, lack the required expertise, recognize a serious conflict of interest, or cannot complete the review within a reasonable period. Editors must also disclose and appropriately manage their own competing interests.
MMRR is committed to recognized principles of publication ethics and responsible editorial conduct. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate authorship, manipulated citations, undisclosed competing interests, unethical research, or interference with the peer-review process.
Concerns relating to research or publication integrity may be investigated before or after publication. Authors, reviewers, and editors may be asked to provide supporting documents, ethics approvals, original data, explanations, or other relevant evidence.
Depending on the nature and severity of a concern, the journal may reject a submission, suspend its evaluation, request clarification, contact an institution, publish a correction or expression of concern, retract an article, or take another proportionate editorial action.
Editorial decisions are made independently and are based on the academic merit, ethical acceptability, methodological quality, relevance, and clarity of the submitted work. Journal ownership, commercial considerations, author payments, institutional relationships, advertising, sponsorship, or personal influence must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.
Final acceptance rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an officially authorized editor. Even after favourable reviewer recommendations, a manuscript may require further revision, clarification, ethical verification, editorial correction, or production compliance before it is formally accepted for publication.