INAVA uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.  

1. Submission

To facilitate the double-blind review, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.  To help with this preparation, please ensure the following when submitting to INAVA: 

• Submit the Title Page containing the Authors details and Blinded Manuscript with no author details as 2 separate files.

Information to help prepare the Title Page

This should include the title, authors' names and affiliations, and a complete address for the corresponding author, including telephone and e-mail address.

Information to help prepare the Blinded Manuscript

Besides the obvious need to remove names and affiliations under the manuscript's title, other steps need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review.  To assist with this process, the key items that need to be observed are as follows:

• Use the third person to refer to work the Authors have previously undertaken, e.g., replace any phrases like “as we have shown before” with “… has been shown before [Anonymous, 2007]”.
• Make sure figures do not contain any affiliation related identifier.
• Do not eliminate essential self-references or other references but limit self-references only to papers relevant to those reviewing the submitted paper.
• Cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows:  ‘[Anonymous, 2007]’.
• For blinding in the reference list:  ‘[Anonymous 2007] Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.’
• Remove references to funding sources.
• Do not include acknowledgments.
• Remove any identifying information, including author names, from file names and ensure document properties are also anonymized.

2. Initial Assessment

The manuscript will undergo an initial assessment to check the manuscript topic related to the journal aims and scope, grammar quality, and the 4 requirement items described above.

3. Peer Review

After passing the initial check, the manuscript will be reviewed by 2 reviewers acknowledged on their field of expertise and certified by Publons (Web of Science) to ensure the quality of the comments and suggestions.

In addition to our reviewer guidelines, we also encourage our reviewer to use a checklist when accessing a manuscript, either using Publons checklist or other specific checklists related to the article type.

We have collected and regularly update the reviewer checklist on the following link:

1. Publons Reviewer Guidelines
2. Other checklists for review

The reviewer may decide either to reject the article or to comments on some suggestion and clarify any parts of the article assigned to them.

The authors will have 7 days to reply and answer the reviewers' questions and inquiry and resend it to the system. Once again, the reviewer will check the manuscript and give their final decisions (Accept/ Reject/ Revisions Required).

4. Editorial Process

And if the article passed the reviewing process, it will be handled to the editor for final proofread and editing process. The author needs to confirm the final version for publications and add/revise minor parts of the article based on the editor's suggestions before the article is converted to the pdf galley and published on the website.