STATEMENT OF PEER REVIEW POLICY
In scholarly publishing, reviewers play a critical role. The peer review system aims to legitimize academic work, aid in the improvement of published research quality, and expand networking opportunities within research groups. Notwithstanding the critiques, peer review remains the sole commonly acknowledged approach for study validation, and it has thrived only with small alterations.
Apart from COPE Guidelines, The RCSAS also follows the guidelines of ICMJE. Manuscripts submitted to The RCSAS beyond the submission date of each call for papers will undergo an internal evaluation. Submitted papers are sent out for double-blind review by subject-matter experts if they meet the journal’s fundamental requirements. Within one to three weeks of receiving this, our reviewers are asked to read the articles, review them, and submit their feedback. It is typical for reviewers to limit their recommendations for acceptance on fixing any potential mistakes or issues. If the reviewers suggest so, the author(s) will have the chance to effectively manage their suggestions by a certain deadline. After the manuscript has been submitted, the complete review process should take between two and five weeks.
The RCSAS uses a double-blind peer review approach. All submissions will be reviewed by the editorial board to ensure that they are appropriate for publication in the journal. Papers that are considered eligible are normally sent to at least two independent professional reviewers who assess the paper’s scientific quality. Editor-in-Chief is in charge of making the final decision on whether to accept or reject articles. The decision of Editor-in-Chief is final. Editors are not involved in decisions about articles that they have written or that family members or colleagues have written. Any such submission will be subject to all of the journal’s standard procedures, including peer review, which will be handled independently. The authors are kept in the dark about the assessors’ identities.
The Editor-in-Chief determines whether to accept, review, or reject the article after hearing the views of all reviewers. The manuscript can be approved, given back to the author for minor adjustments, or rejected based on the reviewers’ recommendations.
Responsibility of the Reviewers
Peer review is the process by which professionals in similar professions evaluate manuscripts that have been submitted to the journal. Scientific assessment methods that are objective, impartial, and critical are fundamental to all academic study. Therefore, peer review can be seen as a significant advancement of the scientific method. Peer review entails adding expertise and knowledge-based judgement to the evaluation process, from setting the standards to carrying out the evaluation to reaching the conclusion. The contribution of its peer reviewers is acknowledged by The RCSAS. Each work will be sent for examination by at least two reviewers. The submitted manuscripts are sent out for blind peer review. Both the reviewer and the author’s identities are kept secret. According to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, the articles would be chosen and published based on factors like the relevance, originality, and validity of the research. The decision of editorial board is final to publish or reject any article.
Reviewed Articles and Judgments
Reviews ought to be carried out impartially. It is unacceptable to criticize the author(s) personally. Referees should clearly state their opinions and provide relevant justifications. Reviewers are expected to submit their reviews on schedule and to respond quickly to requests for reviews. Comments from reviewers should be positive, truthful, and courteous.
Reviewers shouldn’t utilize, disseminate, or divulge unpublished information in a manuscript since they should consider it to be confidential and not intended for public exposure. Before the manuscript is released, reviewers must not publicly discuss an author’s work or use that author’s ideas for their own purposes. After submitting their assessments, reviewers should not keep a copy of the document for their own use and should destroy it.
Peer review’s privileged knowledge or ideas must be kept secret and not used for one’s own benefit. Reviewers shouldn’t take into account assessing submissions when they have conflicts of interest due to cooperative, competitive, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, universities, or institutions associated with the submission.
Timely Evaluation of the Manuscript Reviews
In order to fulfil their duties, peer reviewers must thoroughly evaluate a given research submission within the time frames set by The RCSAS. Reviewers should inform the editorial board right away by email to the editor if they are unable to review the paper within the allotted period.
Reviewers’ Comments
Reviewers should draw attention to pertinent published works that the authors have not cited. Any claim that a certain observation, deduction, or argument has already been recorded should be supported by the appropriate citation. Additionally, any significant similarities between the article under consideration and any previously published paper should be brought to the editor’s attention by the reviewer.
