The peer review process is essential in terms of quality as the articles that have undertaken the process are considered highly credible because they have undergone scrutiny by experts with particular knowledge in the topic. The primary aims of peer review are 2-fold: to decide whether or not an article should be published (based on quality and relevance to the journal), and to improve the article before publication. We acknowledge the individuals who support the Journal’s work by serving as peer reviewers and encourage interested persons to enlist by indicating their areas of expertise to the e-mail address: email@example.com. An overview of our procedures related to peer review and editorial decision making is described below.
Internal Peer Review Process:
All submissions first go through an internal peer review process. Each submission is reviewed by the editor assigned by the editorial secretary who makes an initial decision to send the manuscript out for peer review or to reject without external review. Articles can be rejected at this stage for a variety of reasons such as similarity with a recently published article, the topic is outside of the scope of the Journal, little new information is provided, important flaws in the scientific validity, or an unprofessional presentation. This process normally takes a week. If the editor believes the article may be of interest to our readers, it is then sent out for external peer review.
External Double-Blind Peer Review Process:
The editors upon consulting the editorial board identifies potential reviewers based on their expertise in the field, rigor and scientific methodology. Two reviewers are thus identified for each submitted manuscript. The reviewers are selected also by selecting from our database reviewers whose past contributions recommend them by their quality reviews and fit into the time frame. They can be also selected by reading through the article’s bibliography to identify authors who have recently published in a similar area or by conducting a WorldCat and Google Scholar keyword search to identify experts in the field of the submitted paper.
Potential reviewers are contacted by the editorial secretary about their availability and interest in reviewing. Inquiries to reviewers are sent by e-mail, which include the manuscript abstract and the assignment deadline. When prospective reviewers agree to serve, they are permitted access to the manuscript and reviewing instructions, without however being permitted to know the author(s)' name. The reviewers' names are also unknown to manuscript author(s). Reviewers send their assessment to RRSBN. The time frame for making their decision is maximum three weeks. Upon reviewers' recommendations, the manuscript can be accepted, sent back to author for minor revisions, sent back to author to be resubmitted or rejected.
Download the review form: review-form.doc
The assessments from the reviewers obtained, the editor assigned to the manuscript makes a judgment that takes into consideration the critiques and recommendations from the peer reviewers, relevance, and usefulness to researchers, professors and other likely interested readers. Editors consult with one another in the process. In the end, the editor and the honorary editor decide based on the reviews and the assigned editor recommendations whether an article will be published, rejected or postponed for the next issue. We also take into account the number of manuscripts in the queue to be published as well as our impression that the paper can be suitably revised. The authors will be announced by the editorial secretary upon this decision in due time.
The journal editor may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of data or materials access. Very occasionally, concerns may also relate to the implications to society of publishing a paper, including threats to security. In such circumstances, advice will usually be sought simultaneously with the technical peer-review process. The journal has zero tolerance to plagiarism and prevents any such instances by closely scrutinizing all materials accepted for publication before releasing them to the public. Ocasionally, it may use anti-plagiarism detection softwares to make sure that an article, suspected of plagiarism, falls into this category. As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor of the journal concerned.