Peer Review Policy

The Worldwide Journal of Creative Research and Thoughts (WJCRT) follows a rigorous, fair, transparent, and academically responsible peer-review process to ensure the publication of original, high-quality, and ethically sound scholarly research. The peer-review system is designed to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of academic merit, originality, methodological strength, clarity, relevance, ethical compliance, and contribution to knowledge.

The journal is committed to maintaining editorial independence, confidentiality, impartiality, and integrity throughout the review process. All editorial and review decisions are made without discrimination based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, religion, race, political opinion, seniority, or personal background of the authors.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer-review process of WJCRT aims to strengthen the quality and credibility of published research. The main objectives are:

To ensure that submitted manuscripts are original, relevant, and academically valuable.
To assess the scientific, theoretical, conceptual, or practical contribution of the manuscript.
To evaluate the clarity, structure, methodology, analysis, and interpretation of the research.
To identify weaknesses and provide constructive suggestions for improvement.
To ensure that published work complies with ethical standards and publication integrity.
To support authors in improving the scholarly quality of their work.
To protect the integrity and reliability of the academic record.

Double-Blind Review Model

WJCRT follows a double-blind peer-review model. Under this system, the identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. This model helps reduce bias and promotes objective assessment of manuscripts.

Authors are advised to remove identifying details from the manuscript file where required, including author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, institutional references, and self-identifying statements. Reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors before, during, or after the review process.

The double-blind review process ensures that manuscripts are assessed primarily on scholarly merit, originality, research quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to WJCRT undergo initial editorial screening before being sent for external peer review. This preliminary evaluation is conducted by the editorial office or assigned handling editor.

During editorial screening, the manuscript is assessed for:

Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.
Originality and academic contribution.
Compliance with submission guidelines.
Completeness of manuscript structure.
Language clarity and readability.
Ethical declarations and conflict-of-interest statements.
Plagiarism and similarity concerns.
Use of artificial intelligence tools, where disclosed.
Appropriateness of references and citations.
Basic methodological or conceptual soundness.

Manuscripts that fail to meet minimum editorial, ethical, or formatting standards may be returned to authors for correction or rejected without external review. This step helps maintain efficiency and ensures that only suitable submissions proceed to peer review.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, publication record, reviewing experience, professional integrity, and ability to provide objective and constructive feedback. The journal aims to appoint reviewers who are knowledgeable in the specific subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection may consider:

Academic specialization relevant to the manuscript topic.
Research and publication experience in related fields.
Prior peer-review experience.
Professional reputation and academic credibility.
Absence of conflicts of interest.
Ability to complete the review within the required timeframe.
Commitment to confidentiality and ethical review practices.

The editorial team may invite reviewers from universities, research institutions, professional organizations, industry, or interdisciplinary academic networks depending on the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewer Eligibility

Individuals considered for reviewer roles should possess appropriate academic, professional, or research expertise in a discipline covered by WJCRT. Reviewers are expected to demonstrate scholarly competence, ethical conduct, and a willingness to support the journal’s mission of publishing high-quality research.

Eligible reviewers may include:

Faculty members and academicians.
Researchers and scientists.
Postdoctoral researchers.
Senior doctoral scholars with relevant expertise.
Industry professionals with research experience.
Subject specialists and policy experts.
Editorial board members and invited experts.

Reviewers must not accept review assignments where they have a conflict of interest, lack sufficient subject expertise, or cannot complete the review objectively and on time.

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers confirm that they will evaluate the manuscript confidentially, fairly, independently, and constructively in accordance with the ethical standards of WJCRT.

Reviewer Registration and Reviewer Portal Guidelines

The Worldwide Journal of Creative Research and Thoughts (WJCRT) welcomes qualified researchers, academicians, scientists, industry experts, and professionals from around the world to join its international reviewer community. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the academic quality, scientific integrity, originality, and credibility of the journal through constructive, objective, and confidential peer review.

Reviewer registration is completed through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS). Registration is free of charge and allows reviewers to receive manuscript invitations, manage review assignments, update professional profiles, and contribute to the journal's scholarly review process.

How to Register as a Reviewer

Individuals interested in serving as reviewers should first create an account on the journal website.

Visit the official registration page of WJCRT and complete the online registration form by providing accurate professional information.

The registration form generally requires the following information:

Given Name (First Name)
Family Name (Last Name)
Email Address
Username
Password
Affiliation / Institution
Department
Country
Academic Qualification
Designation
ORCID iD (recommended)
Personal Website (optional)
Biography / Professional Profile
Research Interests
Reviewing Interests

Applicants should carefully enter their reviewing interests using keywords separated by commas. These keywords help editors identify suitable reviewers for submitted manuscripts.

Example Reviewing Interests:

Artificial Intelligence
Machine Learning
Education
Business Management
Psychology
Public Health
Data Science
Cyber Security
Law
Sustainability
Humanities
Social Sciences

Before completing registration, reviewers should select the option indicating that they are willing to act as reviewers for the journal.

After successful registration, the Editorial Office may verify reviewer credentials before assigning manuscripts for review.

Creating and Managing Reviewer Login

Once registration has been completed successfully, reviewers can access the journal management system using their registered username or email address together with their password.

The reviewer login provides secure access to all review-related activities while protecting confidential manuscript information.

Reviewers are encouraged to maintain updated contact information and professional details within their account profile to facilitate communication and accurate reviewer matching.

Reviewer account features include:

Secure login and authentication.
Profile management.
Password management.
Notification preferences.
Review invitation management.
Review history.
Review completion records.
Reviewer dashboard access.

Reviewers should never share their login credentials with any third party.

Reviewer Invitation Process

Following editorial screening, manuscripts requiring external evaluation are assigned to qualified reviewers based on subject expertise and reviewing interests.

Selected reviewers receive an official invitation by email through the journal management system.

The invitation generally includes:

Manuscript title.
Abstract.
Keywords.
Expected review deadline.
Reviewer instructions.
Conflict of Interest declaration request.

The complete manuscript becomes accessible only after the reviewer formally accepts the invitation.

Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Reviewers are requested to respond to review invitations promptly.

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should ensure that:

The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
They can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
No personal, financial, institutional, or professional conflict of interest exists.
They can maintain complete confidentiality.

If a reviewer cannot complete the assignment or identifies a conflict of interest, the invitation should be declined immediately so that another qualified reviewer can be assigned without unnecessary delay.

Reviewers should not delegate review responsibilities to colleagues or students without prior approval from the Editorial Office.

Reviewer Dashboard

After accepting a review invitation, reviewers gain access to their secure Reviewer Dashboard within the Online Journal System.

The dashboard enables reviewers to efficiently manage all assigned manuscripts and review activities.

The Reviewer Dashboard typically provides access to:

Active Review Assignments.
Pending Invitations.
Completed Reviews.
Review Deadlines.
Manuscript Download.
Supplementary Files.
Reviewer Guidelines.
Review Submission Forms.
Comments to Authors.
Confidential Comments to Editors.
Recommendation Options.
Review History.
Editorial Messages.

The dashboard is designed to streamline the review workflow while maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the peer-review process.

Reviewers should periodically check their dashboard and registered email address for new invitations, editorial communications, revision requests, and review deadlines.

Timely completion of reviews enables the journal to maintain efficient editorial processing and ensures that authors receive constructive feedback within reasonable publication timelines.

Reviewer Evaluation, Ethics and Editorial Workflow

The Worldwide Journal of Creative Research and Thoughts (WJCRT) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, ethical, and internationally accepted peer-review system. Reviewers play an essential role in safeguarding the quality, credibility, originality, and academic integrity of published research. Every reviewer is expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, professionally, and within the prescribed review period.

Major and Minor Revision Guidelines

Following evaluation, reviewers are requested to recommend an appropriate editorial decision based on the overall scientific quality and scholarly merit of the manuscript. Recommendations should be supported by constructive comments that help authors improve their work.

Minor Revision

Minor revisions are appropriate when the manuscript is fundamentally suitable for publication but requires limited improvements that do not substantially affect the study's methodology, results, or conclusions.

Examples include:

Minor grammatical or language corrections.
Formatting inconsistencies.
Improvement of figures or tables.
Additional references.
Clarification of discussion.
Small improvements to abstract or keywords.
Minor citation corrections.

Major Revision

Major revision should be recommended when the manuscript has scientific potential but requires substantial improvement before publication.

Examples include:

Incomplete literature review.
Weak methodology.
Insufficient statistical analysis.
Need for additional experiments or validation.
Poor organization.
Unclear discussion.
Incomplete conclusions.
Important ethical clarifications.
Missing references supporting major claims.

Major revision does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may undergo one or more additional rounds of peer review before a final editorial decision is reached.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

The reviewer evaluation form includes a confidential section that is visible only to the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor. Information entered in this section is never shared with the authors.

Confidential comments may include:

Concerns regarding originality.
Possible plagiarism.
Duplicate publication.
Potential ethical violations.
Suspected data fabrication.
Image manipulation concerns.
Conflicts of interest.
Questions regarding authorship.
Recommendations for statistical review.
Suggestions regarding editorial handling.

Reviewers should use this section responsibly and professionally. Personal opinions unrelated to the manuscript should not be included.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy for Reviewers

WJCRT recognizes the growing availability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies and encourages their responsible use in scholarly publishing while protecting confidentiality, intellectual property, and research integrity.

Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools only for limited editorial assistance, such as improving grammar, checking readability, or organizing review notes.

Reviewers must not upload any confidential manuscript, supplementary material, unpublished data, reviewer comments, images, tables, or figures into publicly accessible generative AI systems.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for every recommendation and comment submitted to the journal. Editorial judgments must always reflect independent human expertise rather than automated AI-generated opinions.

Artificial Intelligence systems cannot be listed as reviewers and cannot replace independent scholarly evaluation.

Reviewers must ensure that any limited AI assistance does not compromise:

Confidentiality.
Intellectual property.
Author privacy.
Research integrity.
Editorial independence.
Objective scientific evaluation.

Reviewer Ethics

Every reviewer appointed by WJCRT agrees to uphold internationally accepted standards of publication ethics and professional conduct throughout the review process.

Reviewers are expected to:

Maintain complete confidentiality.
Evaluate manuscripts objectively.
Provide constructive criticism.
Avoid discriminatory language.
Respect authors' intellectual property.
Declare all conflicts of interest.
Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
Recommend additional references only when scientifically justified.
Avoid requesting unnecessary self-citations.
Report suspected ethical misconduct immediately.
Refrain from using unpublished information for personal benefit.
Protect confidential research findings.
Respect academic diversity and interdisciplinary approaches.

Reviewers should never contact authors directly regarding manuscripts under review.

Reviewer Removal Policy

The Editorial Office reserves the right to remove a reviewer from the reviewer database whenever necessary to protect the integrity of the peer-review process.

Reviewer privileges may be suspended or revoked in situations including:

Breach of confidentiality.
Failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
Repeated failure to complete reviews.
Submission of biased or unprofessional reviews.
Misuse of confidential information.
Violation of publication ethics.
Attempting to identify anonymous authors improperly.
Use of confidential manuscripts for personal research.
Repeated acceptance of review invitations without completing assignments.
Evidence of research misconduct.

The Editor-in-Chief retains the authority to discontinue reviewer appointments whenever such action is considered necessary to protect editorial quality and ethical publishing standards.

Peer Review Timeline

WJCRT strives to provide an efficient editorial workflow while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

Editorial Stage	Typical Duration
Initial Editorial Screening	3–7 Days
Reviewer Invitation	2–5 Days
Peer Review	2–4 Weeks
Author Revision	1–4 Weeks
Final Editorial Decision	3–10 Days
Production and Publication	1–3 Weeks

Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and editorial workload.

Peer Review Workflow

Author submits manuscript through the online submission system.
Editorial Office performs technical and administrative checks.
Editor conducts initial editorial screening.
Suitable reviewers are identified and invited.
Reviewers accept or decline invitations.
Accepted reviewers receive manuscript access.
Independent peer review is completed.
Review reports are submitted.
Editor evaluates reviewer recommendations.
Editorial decision is communicated to the author.
If revisions are required, authors submit revised manuscripts together with response letters.
Revised manuscripts may undergo additional peer review when necessary.
Final editorial decision is issued.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, production, and online publication.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are entrusted with safeguarding the quality of scholarly publishing. By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to:

Evaluate manuscripts fairly and objectively.
Maintain complete confidentiality.
Provide evidence-based recommendations.
Submit reviews within agreed deadlines.
Report ethical concerns promptly.
Protect unpublished research.
Respect author confidentiality.
Avoid personal criticism.
Support academic integrity.
Promote constructive scholarly improvement.
Maintain professionalism throughout the review process.
Assist the Editorial Board in maintaining the highest standards of research quality.

The Worldwide Journal of Creative Research and Thoughts greatly values the voluntary contributions made by its reviewers and recognizes that rigorous peer review remains one of the fundamental pillars of high-quality scholarly publishing.

Peer Review Policy