Peer Review Process

The COREDAO VIP Research Journal for Web 3.0 and Decentralized Systems follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and relevance of all published manuscripts.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is initially reviewed by the Editorial Office to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Compliance with submission guidelines and formatting requirements
  • Originality and plagiarism standards

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic criteria are returned to the authors for revision or desk rejection.

Double-Blind Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are subjected to a double-blind peer review, where:

  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers
  • Reviewer identities are concealed from authors

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers with subject-matter expertise in Web 3.0, blockchain, and decentralized systems.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Technical soundness and methodological rigor
  • Relevance to Web 3.0 and decentralized technologies
  • Clarity of presentation and organization
  • Validity of results and conclusions
  • Ethical standards and citation integrity

Reviewer Recommendations

Based on reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
  • Reject

Authors are required to address all reviewer comments in a structured response.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on manuscript acceptance after considering reviewer feedback and revised submissions.

Review Timeline

The journal strives to maintain an efficient review timeline:

  • Initial editorial screening: 5–7 days
  • Peer review process: 2–4 weeks
  • Final decision after revision: 1–2 weeks

Ethics and Confidentiality

All reviewers and editors adhere to strict ethical guidelines. Manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents and used solely for academic evaluation.