Sparkling International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Studies is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, research integrity, transparency, and ethical scholarly publishing. The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and independently. The peer-review and publication process is designed to assess the originality, academic significance, methodological soundness, clarity, and contribution of each manuscript to the field of Multidisciplinary Research Studies and related interdisciplinary areas.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors may submit manuscripts electronically through the official submission channel of the journal. Each manuscript should comply with the journal’s Submission Guidelines for Authors. The submission should be original and should not have been previously published or simultaneously submitted to another journal. Upon receipt, the Editorial Office will acknowledge the submission and conduct an initial editorial assessment.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Board before being sent for peer review. The editorial screening normally considers:

• Relevance to the scope of the journal
• Originality and academic contribution
• Basic scholarly quality
• Clarity of the research problem and objectives
• Appropriateness of methodology, where applicable
• Compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines
• Quality and relevance of references
• Language and presentation
• Ethical considerations
• Plagiarism/similarity concerns

Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of the journal, fail to meet minimum academic standards, contain substantial ethical concerns, or do not comply with essential submission requirements may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review. Editorial screening does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript.

3. Plagiarism and Originality Screening

All manuscripts may be subjected to plagiarism/similarity screening before and, where necessary, during the review process. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original and that all borrowed ideas, quotations, data, images, and other materials are appropriately acknowledged. The Editorial Board will assess detected similarities based on their source, nature, extent, and context. A similarity percentage alone will not determine whether a manuscript constitutes plagiarism. Where plagiarism, duplicate publication, substantial overlap, or other forms of publication misconduct are identified, the manuscript may be rejected, and further action may be taken in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics procedures.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Sparkling follows a double-blind peer-review process. Under this system:

• The identity of the author(s) is not disclosed to the reviewer(s).
• The identity of the reviewer(s) is not disclosed to the author(s).
• Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and subject knowledge.
• Manuscripts are normally evaluated by qualified independent reviewers.
• Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.

Authors should therefore ensure that the manuscript submitted for review does not contain unnecessary identifying information.

5. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor selects reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers may be selected based on:

• Subject expertise
• Research experience
• Relevant scholarly publications
• Methodological expertise
• Academic qualifications
• Absence of conflicts of interest

Reviewers should decline an invitation if they have a conflict of interest, insufficient expertise, or another circumstance that may prevent them from providing an impartial review. The journal may invite additional reviewers when the reports received are substantially different, inconclusive, or insufficient for making an editorial decision.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and within the agreed timeframe. The review should consider, where applicable:

• Originality and significance of the research
• Relevance and clarity of the title
• Clarity of the research problem and objectives
• Adequacy of the literature review
• Theoretical or conceptual framework
• Appropriateness of methodology
• Adequacy and reliability of data
• Appropriateness of analytical techniques
• Accuracy of interpretation
• Quality of discussion
• Relationship between findings and conclusions
• Relevance of recommendations
• Quality and adequacy of citations
• Accuracy and consistency of the reference list
• Appropriateness of tables, figures, and illustrations
• Organisation, coherence, and readability
• Compliance with the journal’s author guidelines
• Overall academic contribution to the field

Reviewers should identify significant weaknesses and provide constructive recommendations for improvement.

7. Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with others without permission from the editor.
• Use unpublished information, ideas, data, or arguments from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
• Contact the author directly regarding the manuscript.
• Disclose the contents or status of the manuscript to third parties.

The reviewer’s comments should be professional, objective, and respectful.

8. Reviewer Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. A reviewer should decline the review if:

• They have a personal or professional relationship with the author that could influence their judgement.
• They have a direct academic or financial interest in the research.
• They have recently collaborated with the author(s), where such collaboration may compromise impartiality.
• They are unable to provide an independent assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief may appoint an alternative reviewer where necessary.

9. Review Criteria

Reviewers should provide an overall assessment of the manuscript based on its academic quality and contribution. Particular attention should be given to:

A. Originality

Whether the manuscript provides original knowledge, interpretation, evidence, or perspective.

B. Relevance

Whether the manuscript falls within the scope of Sparkling and is relevant to the field of Multidisciplinary Research Studies or its related interdisciplinary areas.

C. Methodological Rigour

Whether the research design, methods, sources, analytical procedures, and theoretical approaches are appropriate and adequately explained.

D. Scholarly Contribution

Whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to existing scholarship.

E. Analysis and Interpretation

Whether the findings, textual analysis, arguments, or interpretations are logically derived and adequately supported by evidence.

F. Presentation

Whether the manuscript is clearly organised, coherent, readable, and appropriately structured.

G. References

Whether the relevant scholarly literature has been appropriately cited and the citations and bibliography conform to the required citation style.

10. Reviewer’s Recommendation

After completing the review, the reviewer may recommend one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject and Resubmit
• Reject

The reviewer should provide sufficient comments to support the recommendation. The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorised Editorial Board.

11. Revision by Authors

When revisions are requested, authors should carefully consider the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editorial Office. Authors should also provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments, clearly indicating:

• The changes made in the manuscript
• The location of the changes
• Responses to comments that were not adopted, together with appropriate scholarly justification

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation where necessary.

12. Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the reviewers’ reports, the quality of the manuscript, the revisions undertaken, and the overall editorial assessment. The possible editorial decisions are:

1. Accept
2. Accept subject to minor revisions
3. Major revision required
4. Revise and resubmit
5. Reject

A manuscript may be rejected even when individual reviewer reports are favourable if the Editorial Board determines that the manuscript does not meet the journal’s overall standards.

13. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript. The journal does not discriminate against authors on the basis of gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, religion, political views, or other irrelevant personal characteristics. Editors should make decisions independently and should not be influenced by commercial, financial, personal, or institutional interests.

14. Publication Ethics

Sparkling is committed to responsible research and scholarly publishing. The journal does not tolerate:

• Plagiarism
• Fabrication of data
• Falsification of data
• Duplicate publication
• Redundant publication
• Unauthorised copying
• Manipulation of research findings
• Misrepresentation of authorship
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Unethical research practices
• Improper citation or attribution

Where an ethical concern is identified, the Editorial Board may investigate the matter and may request explanations, supporting documentation, or clarification from the authors.

15. Authorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual or scholarly contributions to the research. All listed authors should:

• Approve the final manuscript.
• Agree to its submission and publication.
• Accept responsibility for their contribution.
• Approve any subsequent revisions.

Changes to authorship after submission require a clear explanation and approval from all affected authors and the Editorial Board.

16. Conflict of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationship that could influence the research, review, or editorial decision. Where no conflict exists, authors may provide a statement such as: “The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.”

17. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Issues

The journal recognises its responsibility to maintain the integrity of the published scholarly record. If a significant error is identified after publication, the journal may publish an appropriate correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue. Authors should promptly inform the Editorial Office if they discover a significant error in their published work.

18. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that the decision was based on a significant misunderstanding, procedural error, or demonstrably inappropriate review. Appeals should provide clear and substantive reasons and should not simply disagree with the reviewers’ academic judgement. The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate senior member of the Editorial Board will consider the appeal. The decision following the appeal will normally be final. Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, publication ethics, or other aspects of the publication process should be submitted to the Editorial Office.

19. Publication Decision and Production

Once a manuscript has successfully completed peer review and all required revisions have been satisfactorily addressed, the Editorial Board will make the final publication decision. Accepted manuscripts may undergo:

• Copy editing
• Language editing
• Formatting
• Reference checking
• Proofreading
• Final author approval, where applicable

Publication is subject to completion of the journal’s editorial and production procedures.

20. No Guarantee of Acceptance

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance or publication. Acceptance is based on the outcome of editorial assessment, peer review, revision, and final editorial decision. The journal does not offer or guarantee immediate, unconditional, or paid acceptance of manuscripts.

21. Publication Timeline

Sparkling Journal endeavours to process submissions in a timely and transparent manner. However, the duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for revisions, and other editorial considerations. Authors should not interpret the duration of peer review as an indication of acceptance or rejection.

22. Commitment to International Scholarly Publishing Standards

Sparkling is committed to maintaining international standards of scholarly publishing, with particular emphasis on:

• Rigorous peer review
• Research integrity
• Publication ethics
• Editorial independence
• Transparency
• Confidentiality
• Fairness and impartiality
• Responsible authorship
• Accurate citation and attribution
• Protection of the scholarly record

The journal may seek inclusion in recognised abstracting and indexing databases, subject to the respective eligibility and evaluation criteria of those services. No indexing or database status will be claimed unless it has been officially confirmed by the respective indexing organisation.