Is there any bias in the peer review process of the journal?

Yes, bias exists as an inherent risk within the traditional peer review process employed by academic journals. It arises from the subjective nature of human judgment employed by reviewers and editors. Key sources include affiliation bias (favoring prestigious institutions), confirmation bias (preferring work aligning with one's views), methodological bias (preferring familiar approaches), and implicit biases (related to gender, nationality, language, etc.). Gatekeeping dynamics also sometimes occur. Double-blind review aims to mitigate affiliation and identity biases but cannot eliminate them entirely, as expertise often reveals identity indirectly. While eliminating all bias is infeasible, journals implement mitigation strategies. These include reviewer training on bias, promoting diversity in reviewer pools, employing double-blind review where possible, utilizing screening checklists, and providing editors with oversight and conflict-of-interest protocols. Transparency mechanisms like opening identities or publishing reviews may also help reduce bias. Its persistence undermines fairness and meritocracy, but robust policies aim to manage it responsibly.