Table of Contents

Peer-review Policy

Peer review policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. To ensure the most convenient and efficient submission and peer review process possible, Rovedar peer reviews are conducted electronically via Open Journal Systems (OJS). Our reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high standards Review Policy and all manuscripts are peer-reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

The existence of a manuscript under review is not revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers need to maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal editors.

Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically collected and analyzed to help improve the quality of the editorial or peer-review processes. Identifying information remains confidential. Editor-in-Chief makes the final decisions regarding the publication of manuscripts after having the suggestions from the reviewers and editors.

Initial manuscript evaluation

Manuscripts submitted through OJS undergo initial screening by an Editor before undergoing scientific review. This screening involves assessing the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  1. Scope of the Article: The submitted manuscript is evaluated to ensure it aligns with the journal’s subject area.
  2. Format of the submitted manuscript
  3. Assessment of Originality and Plagiarism: All submitted manuscripts will be subjected to iThenticate to report the similarity.

Manuscripts that do not pass this initial evaluation (Step 1) are rejected without undergoing scientific review. Common reasons for rejection at this stage include:

  1. Out of Scope: Manuscripts are returned to the authors if the topic falls outside the journal’s scope.
  2. Careless Preparation: Manuscripts with numerous spelling mistakes, poor English writing, and excessive cited references not listed properly are rejected, regardless of the research quality.
  3. Repetition of Known Results: Manuscripts that present results similar to existing literature are not considered unless they offer new insights or a strong justification for replication.
  4. Duplication/Plagiarism: Duplicate publications and plagiarism are taken seriously. Authors are required to explain if the submitted manuscript has been published elsewhere. Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation within 7 days leads to rejection without review, following the journal’s policies.

Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are out of the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least three experts for review.

Peer-review mode

Rovedar journals employ a single-blind reviewing policy.

Selection of the reviewer

Whenever possible, reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated. See Ethical Responsibilities and Duties.

Unbiased/Confidential evaluation process

To ensure fairness in the review process, we try to avoid reviewers who:

  • Have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors;
  • Have commented on drafts of the manuscript;
  • Are in direct competition;
  • Have a history of dispute with the authors;
  • And/or, have a financial interest in the outcome

Because it is not possible for the editor to know of all potential biases, we ask reviewers to inform us of anything that might affect their report, including commercial interests, and to decline to review in cases they feel they are unable to be objective. We do not find it necessary to exclude reviewers who have reviewed a paper for another journal; the fact that two journals have independently identified a particular person as qualified does not decrease the validity of his/her opinion.

Reviewer reports
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: – Is original – Is methodologically sound – Follows appropriate ethical guidelines – Has results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions – And correctly cited previous relevant work.

Language correction is not part of the peer-review process, but reviewers may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.

How long does the review process take?
The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewers. Should the reviewers’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the reviewers, which usually include verbatim comments by the reviewers. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial reviewers who may then request another revision of a manuscript.

Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers.

Final decision
The recommendations are sent to the Editor(s)-in-Chief, along with a review from the assigned Editorial Board Members. The Editor(s)-in-Chief makes a decision on the manuscript, for which there are three options: accept, requires revision, or reject.

  • Manuscripts may be accepted, returned for revision, or rejected. The authors are so notified.
  • If manuscripts are returned for revision, the author is provided specific instructions as to the revision requirements via email. Authors should submit back their revisions within 14 days in the case of minor revision, or 28 days in the case of major revision. Revised manuscripts evaluated for compliance with the revision requirements.
  • If a manuscript is rejected, the author is notified and provided the reviewer’s comments specifying the reason(s) for rejection. Rejection is final, there is no appeal procedure for rejected papers.
  • If a manuscript is accepted the author is notified.

To ensure unbiased decision-making and to avoid any potential conflicts of interest, authors with a position in the journal’s editorial team will be excluded from any editorial handling of their manuscript (including reviewing and editing). In other words, the editor should not participate in the evaluation of papers they have authored, papers authored by their family members or colleagues, or papers connected to products or services they have a personal interest in. Articles from the Editor-in-Chief will be assigned to an Associate Editor or, in cases where the Associate Editor is not available, to an Editorial Board Member with related expertise. If such a submission occurs, it must undergo the journal’s standard procedures. Peer review should be conducted independently, separate from the involved author or editor and their research groups. After the review comments have been received from external reviewers, the manuscript will be returned to the Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member to make a final decision.

Reviewers are obligated to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the content of manuscripts they review. They are not allowed to discuss authors’ work publicly, appropriate authors’ ideas, or retain the manuscript for personal use. Reviewers must destroy manuscript copies after completing their reviews.

If reviewers seek assistance from a trainee or colleague, they must acknowledge these individuals’ contributions in their comments submitted to the editor. It is crucial for reviewers to uphold the confidentiality of the manuscript, even when using software or AI technologies, and disclose to journals if AI technology is employed in their review process. Reviewers need to be cautious as AI-generated output may sound authoritative but can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.

Online review system

To ensure the most convenient and efficient peer review process possible, our peer reviews are conducted electronically via the OJS system (journal website). The Editorial staff can upload manuscripts that are ready for review, release the task description on the OJS system, and monitor the review process. Authors can register to become Journal members (with valid identity verification). They can also register to peer-review the manuscript if they are interested in the subject area. Researchers can also share their thoughts or comments via the discussion section in the OJS. So, OJS allows the entire management of submission, peer review, and production workflow.