NKR acknowledges that the peer review plays an integral role in upholding a scholarly record and maintains that journals must provide transparent policies for peer review to be read by the subscribers and the readers.

​

Read our Publication Ethics Guidelines Here

All manuscripts are subjected to a double-blind peer review performed by at least 2 outside reviewers based on NKR's standards and careful consideration is given to:

​

1. Research Question and Methodology,
2. Originality and Academic Contribution,
3. Structure and Logic of the Argument,
4. Appropriateness of Related Sources and Materials, and
5. Completeness of the Manuscript.

​

NKR’s review regulations divide the peer review decision into three categories; Publish, Revise, and Reject. Criteria for each of these categories is as seen below.

1. Publish: A manuscript that fulfills all of the five review standards as listed above. Such a manuscript that is found during the reading to be in need of only minor rewordings or revisions.
2. Revise: A manuscript that fails to satisfy one of the five standards and requires partial or general revision. Should this manuscript, upon editing, address these shortcomings, then it shall be publishable.
3. Reject: A manuscript that fails to meet most of the journal’s publication standards and the issues may not be addressed without a complete rewriting of the manuscript
 

Reviewers are expected to give their scholarly opinion on the manuscript by filling out the NKR peer review form that details the above guidelines. The review process typically takes between 2 to 4 months.  Final decisions (Reject, Revise and Resubmit, Revise and Publish, and Publish) are made based on the consensus of peer reviewers.  Should a definitive decision not be possible due to conflicting reviews, another reviewer will be solicited and the decision made by majority consensus.

 

All peer review practices will do their best to adhere to COPE's best practices for peer review as pertain to NKR double blind peer review.

​