Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

The Dyke is a multidisciplinary, open-access journal committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity and research excellence. Every manuscript submitted to The Dyke undergoes a rigorous multi-stage review process designed to ensure academic quality, originality, methodological rigour, and relevance to the journal’s thematic scope. The journal employs a combination of editorial review, peer review, anonymous peer review, and double anonymous peer review mechanisms.

2. Editorial Review

All submissions are first subjected to an editorial review conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board to:

• Assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s aims and scope.
• Evaluate adherence to submission guidelines and ethical standards.
• Conduct an initial similarity and plagiarism check.
• Determine whether the paper demonstrates sufficient originality, scholarly merit, and methodological soundness to proceed to peer review.

Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria are desk-rejected, while those meeting the threshold are forwarded for external peer review.

3. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts passing editorial screening undergo peer review by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and impartiality. The review process focuses on:

• Originality and contribution to knowledge.
• Conceptual clarity and theoretical grounding.
• Methodological rigour and data integrity.
• Coherence of argumentation and interpretation.
• Academic writing style and referencing accuracy.

Reviewers provide detailed written feedback, recommending one of the following outcomes:

• Accept as submitted.
• Minor revisions.
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions).

4. Anonymous Peer Review

To ensure fairness and objectivity, The Dyke adopts an anonymous peer review policy in which the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors. Reviewers are instructed to avoid self-identifying language or references that could reveal their identity.

5. Double Anonymous Peer Review

In most cases, The Dyke applies a double anonymous (double-blind) peer review process:

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

All identifying details are removed from manuscripts before circulation. This process ensures unbiased evaluation, free from institutional, national, or personal influence.

6. Editorial Decision and Revision

Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief consolidates reviewers’ reports and communicates the decision to the author(s). Where revisions are required:

• Authors must submit a detailed response to the reviewers' document.
• Revised manuscripts are subject to further editorial assessment or secondary review, depending on the nature of revisions.

All final acceptance decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board.

Post-Review Quality Control

Before publication, all accepted manuscripts undergo:

• 
  - Editorial proofreading for clarity and consistency.
• 
  - Verification of citation formatting and ethical compliance.
• - Final approval by the Editor-in-Chief.

8. Ethical and Confidentiality Principles

• Reviewers and editors must treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Conflicts of interest must be declared immediately.
• Reviewers must provide objective, constructive feedback.
• The journal adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines in handling ethical issues.

9. Duration of Review Process

The review process typically follows these indicative timelines:

• Editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
• Peer review: 4–6 weeks
• Revision and resubmission: 2–4 weeks
• Final decision and production: 2–3 weeks

10. Acknowledgement of Reviewers

In recognition of their scholarly contribution, reviewers may be acknowledged collectively in the journal’s annual issue, unless they prefer anonymity.