Peer Review

PERENNIAL adheres to a rigorous and structured double-blind peer review process to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarly excellence.

Upon receipt, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary assessment by the editorial board to determine its relevance to the journal’s scope, adherence to submission guidelines, and overall academic quality. Manuscripts deemed suitable are subsequently assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers who possess recognized expertise in the subject matter.

The review process is conducted in a double-blind manner, wherein the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure impartiality and eliminate potential biases. Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript based on its originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, significance of findings, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

Based on the reviewers’ evaluations and recommendations, the editorial board may render one of the following decisions: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Authors are provided with detailed feedback and, where applicable, are invited to revise and resubmit their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers’ comments.

PERENNIAL endeavors to complete the peer review process within a period of 4 to 8 weeks, subject to the availability of qualified reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript. Final decisions regarding publication are made by the Editor in consultation with the editorial board, ensuring that only high-quality and impactful research is disseminated through PERENNIAL.