Peer Review Statement

WORLD MARITIME is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality and research integrity. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process prior to acceptance and publication. Expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. This process aims to sustain the originality and quality of research work, promote objectivity, and eliminate potential bias.

•  Double-Blind Peer Review

A rigorous double-blind peer review process is applied for all manuscripts submitted to the journal through external peer review. In this system, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other, minimizing bias and promoting objectivity in the evaluation. 

•  Peer Review Process

The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. The journal’s peer review process is explained in the following paragraph:

  1. Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts via the journal’s official email.  
  2. Initial Screening: An assigned editor does the initial screening and forwards it to the reviewers. All submissions are first reviewed for originality and only then will be decided whether they are suitable for peer review.
  3. Peer Review: Two independent reviewers who remain anonymous evaluate each manuscript, and the reviewers’ identities are also concealed from the authors. The editorial board may assign additional reviewers if the decisions of two reviewers diverge. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein.
  4. Decision Making: Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editorial board’s final opinion, the editor decides to accept the paper, accept it with revisions, request resubmission, or reject it.
  5. Revisions Required: If the manuscript is accepted with revisions, authors are provided with recommendations. Authors resubmit the updated version. Revised manuscripts may undergo another round of peer review, depending on the extent of changes made, to ensure all concerns have been adequately addressed.
  6. Editing and Proofreading: The updated manuscript undergoes an editing and proofreading process for publication.


•  Peer Review Guidance

A principle of integrity and transparency should be adhered to throughout the peer review process. The following conventions should be respected:

  1. Confidentiality: All manuscripts and peer reviews are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from discussing the manuscript with others, except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. Unauthorized use or disclosure of submitted materials is strictly prohibited.
  2. Constructive Critique: Having the responsibility to acknowledge the positive aspects of the material under identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the improvements needed. Being accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports. 
  3. Impartiality: Providing unbiased, constructive feedback on the scholarly merits and the scientific value based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts. Avoiding personal comments or criticism.
  4. Disclosure of Conflict or Concern: Adhering to the ethical standards outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Noting any ethical concerns and any potential personal, financial or perceived conflict of interest.
  5. Timeliness: Acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and submitting it in a timely manner. 

•  Review and Revision Timeline

The typical review period spans approximately 2 weeks. Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within this timeframe to ensure a timely decision process.

If revisions are required, authors will have up to 4 weeks to submit the revised manuscript. The revised submission should include a rebuttal letter addressing each comment and a tracked changes document highlighting all modifications. 

•  Right to Appeal

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals should be submitted to the editorial board with detailed justifications.

For comprehensive details on the journal’s publication policies, please refer to: www.worldmaritimejournal.com