1. Double-Blind Peer Review

EDIJPP operates a Double-Blind Peer Review system, whereby:

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
• All identifying information is removed from the manuscript before review to ensure impartial evaluation.
  
  Reviewer's Evaluation Form
  
  After clicking the link go to file, then download in microsoft word

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office to determine whether it:

• Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
• Meets formatting and submission requirements.
• Complies with APA 7th Edition referencing style.
• Meets originality requirements (maximum 19% similarity, not more than 4% from any single source).
• Demonstrates sufficient scholarly quality for external review.

2.1 Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI):

EDIJPP permits AI tools only for language editing, grammar improvement, and manuscript organization; however, authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, integrity, and scientific content of their work. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, and any AI assistance must be transparently disclosed, while undisclosed or improperly attributed AI-generated content may be treated as plagiarism and grounds for editorial action.

Manuscripts failing these requirements may be desk rejected before peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers possessing expertise in the relevant discipline.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

• Subject expertise
• Research and publication record
• Academic experience
• Absence of conflicts of interest
• Availability to complete reviews within the prescribed timeline

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Originality and novelty
• Significance and policy relevance
• Literature review
• Research methodology
• Data quality and analysis
• Interpretation of results
• Clarity of presentation
• Ethical compliance
• Contribution to knowledge
• Overall suitability for publication

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations for improvement.

5. Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the review process as follows:

The Editorial Office keeps authors informed throughout the review process.

6. Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board, may reach one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Accept with Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions Required
• Reject

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

7. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must:

• Address all reviewer comments carefully.
• Submit a revised manuscript within four weeks.
• Provide a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Failure to submit revisions within the stipulated period may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.

8. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Maintain strict confidentiality.
• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
• Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
• Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other ethical concerns.
• Accept review assignments only within their area of expertise.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to EDIJPP are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers shall not:

• Share manuscripts with third parties.
• Use unpublished information for personal research.
• Disclose reviewer identities.

10. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, personal, or professional conflicts of interest.

Individuals with conflicts shall recuse themselves from the review or editorial decision-making process.

11. Publication Ethics

The journal follows the ethical standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and complies with the publication ethics framework prescribed by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan.

Any allegation of:

• Plagiarism
• AI generated write up
• Duplicate publication
• Unethical research practices
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

will be investigated according to COPE procedures and may result in rejection, correction, or retraction.

12. Transparency and Fairness

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on:

• Academic quality and originality
• Methodological rigor
• Relevance to the journal's scope

The journal does not discriminate on the basis of nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs.

13. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, providing detailed justification.

Appeals are reviewed independently, and the Editor-in-Chief's decision after reconsideration shall be final.