Reviewers’ responsibilities

The review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making final editorial decisions, and the editorial communications with the author may also help the author improve various aspects of the paper. Reviewers should refrain from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.

All papers submitted to the International Journal of Disaster Risk Management undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process.

The initial evaluation is based on a preliminary screening by the editor, followed by a more detailed assessment by at least two anonymous reviewers. Peer review comments remain confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit agreement of the reviewer.

Each paper is assessed based on the following criteria: a) the originality of its contribution to the field of disaster risk management; b) the theoretical and methodological soundness of the topic; c) the coherence of the research; and d) the significance of advancing disaster studies.

The selection of reviewers is at the discretion of the editor in chief. Reviewers must possess expertise in the manuscript's subject area; they must not belong to the Authors' own institution and must not have recently co-published with any of the Authors. Reviews must be conducted objectively. 

The first evaluation is based on an initial editor screening, followed by a more in-depth assessment by at least two anonymous reviewers. Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer. Each paper is judged on the following criteria: a) the originality of its contribution to the field of disaster risk management; b) the topic's theoretical and methodological validity; c) the coherence of its research; and d) the importance of advancing disaster studies. The selection of reviewers is at the discretion of the editor in chief. The reviewers must be competent about the manuscript's subject matter; they must not be from the Authors' own institution, and they must not have recently co-published with any of the Authors. Reviews must be carried out objectively. 

We kindly request that you utilize this Reviewer Instruction for your feedback and contributions.

All the articles, reviews, and communications published go through the peer-review process and receive at least two reviews with the next decisions:

1. Accept in the current form

2. Accept the paper with the minor changes

The paper is generally accepted pending revisions based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors have five days to make minor revisions.

3. Resubmit with the major changes

The manuscript's approval would be contingent on the changes. If part of the reviewer's criticisms cannot be altered, the author must offer a point-by-point answer or a rebuttal. Typically, only one round of substantial changes is permitted. The authors will be requested to resubmit the amended work within a reasonable period, and the updated version will be returned to the reviewer for additional feedback.

4. Decline the submission

The article contains significant flaws and offers no unique or meaningful contribution. Resubmission to the journal is not an option. All reviewer criticisms should be addressed in a point-by-point manner. When the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must respond clearly.