Peer Review Policy

Editorial Checks: High standards of research integrity is maintained by subjecting all submitted manuscripts to initial screening for text similarity / plagiarism and undisclosed AI-generated content prior to peer review, using industry standard software. Also checks are undertaken to detect hallucinated references, and submissions replete with such references are summarily rejected, without advancing to peer review. Subsequent to peer review, the resubmitted manuscript is also subjected to the same checks again, because several manuscripts have been found have a spurt in AI-generated content while trying to align with or satisfy reviewer queries.

Peer Review Policy: The International Journal of Disaster Studies and Climate Resilience  will undertake rigorous, equitable, and timely peer-review process marked by fair editorial decisions, transparency (clear criteria, and timelines) and accountability by adherence to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices. Single-blind review, two independent reviewers are normally invited for every article. Additional reviewers may be added at the editors’ discretion (e.g., in highly interdisciplinary submissions or when initial reports conflict). Editors will give weight for disciplinary expertise, geographic diversity, and gender balance in reviewer selection. Manuscripts employing quantitative data or complex statistical methodologies undergo a dedicated evaluation by a specialized human statistical reviewer to ensure analytical rigor and accuracy.

A note on 'Citation Pollution': Authors must ensure that each paper they cite exists. Any DOI included in the references must resolve to the paper and match the cited title, authors, year and journal. Use of LLMs for drafting, literature survey, or reference generation must be disclosed at submission. Manuscripts with several fictitious LLM-generated references or fabricated DOIs or wrongly pointing DOIs will be rejected on research-integrity grounds. This note appears in the home page because of the additional time, effort that is often wasted by 1. the authors themselves, 2. the editors, 3. the reviewers, and finally 4. the whole universe of knowledge (if these polluted citations slip into print) in trying to determine citation integrity. 

Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, be objective and constructive (by providing evidence-based feedback aimed at improving the work). Must decline if conflict of interest is involved (financial, academic, personal). Reviewers may not upload any part of the manuscript to public AI tools. If AI is used e.g., language checking, reviewers must disclose such use to the editor. Most importantly, notify the editor immediately if unable to meet the agreed deadline.

Appeals and Complaints: Appeals on rejection of ms must be filed within 10 days of the decision, include detailed justification, and will be assessed by an uninvolved Editor. Post-publication ethics. IJDSCR follows COPE flowcharts for corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions. Correction (erratum / corrigendum). Factual or typographical errors that do not invalidate the main findings (e.g., mislabeled figure, minor data slip). Expression of Concern.   Credible doubt about reliability but investigation is incomplete and institution still enquiring, evidence inconclusive, authors non-responsive. Retraction. Clear evidence that results are unreliable through error, research misconduct, duplicate publication, plagiarism, or unethical research.