Peer Review Policy


The peer review process of Kashf Journal of Multidisciplinary Research aims to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, quality, and rigor in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Through rigorous peer review, we strive to ensure the credibility, validity, and relevance of published research.

Peer Review Model:

Kashf Journal of Multidisciplinary Research employs a double-blind peer review model, wherein the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This ensures impartiality and minimizes potential biases in the evaluation process.

Reviewer Selection:

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and scholarly contributions in relevant disciplines. The editorial board carefully chooses reviewers who possess the necessary subject matter knowledge to provide insightful and constructive feedback on submitted manuscripts.


Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process. They must not disclose any information about the manuscript or their review comments to anyone outside of the editorial team. Similarly, authors' identities are concealed from reviewers to ensure unbiased evaluation.

Reviewer Guidelines:

Reviewers are provided with clear guidelines and evaluation criteria to assess the quality, originality, significance, and methodology of the submitted manuscripts. They are encouraged to provide constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement to help authors enhance the clarity and impact of their work.


Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations in a timely manner to facilitate the efficient processing of submitted manuscripts. While recognizing the voluntary nature of their service, reviewers are encouraged to prioritize their reviews and adhere to the journal's specified timelines.

Conflict of Interest:

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence their impartiality in reviewing a manuscript. Conflicts of interest may arise from personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors or their institutions. Reviewers with conflicts of interest will be recused from evaluating the respective manuscript.

Editorial Decision:

Based on the feedback received from reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors make informed decisions regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of submitted manuscripts. Authors are provided with transparent and constructive feedback to guide them in improving their work, if required.