IWNW is a Peer review that represents an essential and unbiased mechanism that guarantees the academic integrity and scientific quality of publications. As with all leading international journals, IWNW upholds rigorous standards through a structured peer review process. The following outlines the complete workflow, from manuscript submission to publication.

The total duration—from submission to final publication—averages approximately two months, divided equally between the review and production stages.

1. Initial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief. In exceptional circumstances, manuscripts demonstrating outstanding quality may be accepted immediately. However, papers that lack originality, contain serious methodological flaws, exhibit poor language quality, or fall outside the journal’s thematic scope are rejected at this stage.
Manuscripts deemed suitable for further evaluation are forwarded to at least two expert reviewers. Authors are typically notified of rejection decisions within two to three weeks.

2. Type of Peer Review

IWNW employs a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that both authors and referees remain anonymous to maintain fairness and objectivity.

3. Selection of Referees

Reviewers are selected strictly according to their scholarly expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. The journal maintains an updated international referee database and ensures that reviewers are not from the same country as the submitting author.
Although authors may suggest potential reviewers, the editorial board reserves the right to accept or disregard these recommendations. Each manuscript is assessed by two referees.

4. Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Referees evaluate submissions based on three principal dimensions:

Technical: Scientific rigor, precision, clarity of expression, and proper referencing.

Quality: Originality, relevance, justification for the study, and proportionality of content to length.

Presentation: Appropriateness of title, clarity and informativeness of the abstract, quality of figures and tables, and soundness of conclusions.

Referees are not required to perform linguistic editing or proofreading tasks.

5. Review Timeline

The review process usually spans one month.
In cases of conflicting referee reports or delays, a third reviewer may be invited. Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original referees within one week, and multiple rounds of revision may occur when necessary.

6. Editorial Decision

Following receipt of referee reports, the Editor-in-Chief—in consultation with the Associate Editor—evaluates the feedback and issues one of the following decisions:

Accept

Accept with minor revisions

Reject and resubmit (major revisions required)

Reject

7. Final Notification

The final decision, along with the referees’ reports and editorial recommendations, is communicated to the corresponding author. This correspondence may include direct reviewer comments.

8. Special Issues and Conference Proceedings

For special issues or conference proceedings, the peer review process may vary and can involve guest editors or scientific committees.
Authors contributing to such editions may contact the Editorial Office for specific information regarding the applied review protocol.

Illustrative Diagram of the Peer Review Workflow
[Manuscript Submission]
           ↓
 [Initial Editorial Screening]
     (Rejection or Send for Review)
           ↓
      [Double-Blind Review]
   (Two Independent Referees)
           ↓
      [Referee Reports]
     ↙                 ↘
[Minor/Major Revision]  [Rejection]
           ↓
 [Editorial Decision]
 (Accept / Revise / Reject)
           ↓
   [Author Notification]
           ↓
   [Final Editing & Proofs]
           ↓
      [Publication]