Review Process

The International Journal for Research in Climatic Change & Earth Science (IJRCCES) follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process in accordance with the principles and best practice guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal is committed to maintaining academic integrity, impartial evaluation, and high standards of scholarly publishing in the fields of climate science, environmental studies, and earth system research.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor. This preliminary evaluation ensures that the manuscript meets the basic criteria required for further review.

During this stage, the manuscript is assessed to determine whether it:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of the journal

  • Meets basic formatting and quality standards

  • Demonstrates sufficient academic relevance and originality

  • Complies with ethical publishing and submission guidelines

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements may be rejected during the initial screening stage without proceeding to external peer review.

Plagiarism and Ethical Screening

All submitted manuscripts are subject to similarity checking and ethical screening prior to peer review. The journal maintains strict standards regarding academic integrity and does not accept manuscripts that involve:

  • Plagiarism or substantial similarity to previously published work

  • Data fabrication or falsification

  • Duplicate or simultaneous submission to other journals

  • Manipulation or misrepresentation of research data

If ethical concerns arise, the editorial office follows established COPE procedures to investigate and address the matter appropriately.

Peer Review Model

IJRCCES operates under a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Each eligible manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers assess manuscripts solely on the basis of scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and relevance to climate change and earth science research.

This process ensures fairness, objectivity, and high academic standards.

Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on several key criteria, including:

  • Originality and novelty of the research

  • Scientific rigor and methodological soundness

  • Clarity of research objectives and study design

  • Validity and reliability of results

  • Relevance to climate science, environmental studies, or earth system research

  • Ethical compliance and transparency in reporting

  • Overall contribution to the advancement of the field

Based on their evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Reviewer comments are shared with authors to support improvements and maintain transparency in the review process.

Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors are invited to submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments, explaining how each point has been addressed.

For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the revised submission may be returned to the original reviewers for additional evaluation before a final decision is made.

This iterative process helps improve the quality, clarity, and scientific value of the manuscript.

Final Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor. Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations, editorial judgment, and the journal’s established quality standards.

All decisions are made independently and free from commercial or institutional influence, ensuring fairness and academic integrity.

Transparency and Fairness

The journal is committed to maintaining a transparent and equitable review process. Accordingly:

  • Manuscripts are evaluated solely on scholarly merit

  • There is no discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs

  • Conflicts of interest are disclosed and managed appropriately

  • Confidentiality of authors and reviewers is strictly maintained throughout the review process