Peer-Review Process

At YBN University, manuscripts submitted to the International Multidisciplinary Journal METAINNOVATE undergo a thorough and rigorous peer-review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality.

Initial Evaluation

Each submitted manuscript will first be reviewed by an experienced editor to assess its adherence to the journal's ethical guidelines and preparation standards. The manuscript must meet the following criteria:

• Proper Formatting: The manuscript should be correctly formatted and follow the journal’s submission guidelines.
• Ethical Compliance: Authors must ensure all necessary disclosures are included and comply with the ethical standards set by the journal.
• Reference Accuracy: A check will be conducted to verify the accuracy of references. Incomplete, misleading, or incorrect references may result in desk rejection.
• Language Review: The manuscript will undergo an evaluation of the English language used. If necessary, authors may be asked to have the manuscript edited by a professional language editor or native speaker.
• Plagiarism Check: The manuscript will be screened for plagiarism to maintain originality and academic integrity.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to authors for revision or resubmission. If a manuscript lacks originality, contains major scientific or technical flaws, or does not meet the journal’s requirements, it may be rejected without undergoing formal peer review.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial evaluation will proceed to a double-blind peer review process. This means that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least two qualified experts in the relevant field.

Editorial Decision and Revisions

After the peer review, the editor will carefully consider the feedback from the reviewers to make a final decision on the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief will take into account the reviewers' comments, and the journal may consult with additional experts or editors as necessary.

Authors are expected to respond to all reviewer comments in a clear and detailed manner, providing point-by-point explanations in their response letter. If there is any disagreement with a reviewer or editor’s comments, authors must clearly address and justify their stance in their rebuttal.