Peer Review Process

Sarasvata International Research Journal follows a double-blind peer-review model in which author and reviewer identities are normally concealed from one another. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, independent evaluation and compliance with journal policies.

The editorial office verifies that files and metadata are complete, the manuscript is readable and required declarations have been supplied. Incomplete submissions may be returned before academic assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief or authorised editor evaluates relevance to scope, originality, academic quality, organisation, language, ethical compliance and similarity concerns. Manuscripts failing essential requirements may be declined without external review.

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to independent experts with relevant subject knowledge. Reviewer selection considers expertise, availability, conflicts of interest, confidentiality and the need for fair, balanced evaluation.

• Originality and contribution to knowledge
• Importance and clarity of the research question
• Adequacy of literature engagement
• Suitability and transparency of methodology
• Validity of analysis and findings
• Logical discussion and supported conclusions
• Ethical compliance, citations and overall presentation

• Accept as submitted
• Accept subject to minor revision
• Major revision and further evaluation required
• Resubmit as a substantially revised manuscript
• Reject

Authors must respond point by point and identify changes clearly. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed editorially, depending on the nature of the revisions. Failure to address essential concerns may result in rejection.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision after considering reports, author responses, policy requirements and overall quality. Accepted manuscripts undergo editorial checks, copyediting, layout and author proof review before publication.

Review records remain confidential. Authors may submit a reasoned appeal identifying a significant procedural or factual concern; disagreement alone does not guarantee reconsideration. Ethical concerns are handled under the journal's publication-ethics policies.