Peer Review Policy
1. Purpose
The peer review process at JRTCSE ensures that all published research is of the highest quality, contributes significantly to the field, and adheres to ethical standards. The policy outlines the procedures, responsibilities, and expectations for reviewers, authors, and editors involved in the review process.
2. Scope
This policy applies to all submissions to JRTCSE, including research articles, review articles, short communications, and any other contributions considered for publication.
3. Review Process
3.1 Initial Manuscript Check
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to ensure it meets the journal’s scope and basic submission requirements.
3.2 Assignment to Reviewers
If the manuscript passes the initial check, it is assigned to at least two independent experts in the field for peer review. The selection of reviewers is based on their expertise, experience, and absence of any conflict of interest.
3.3 Double-Blind Review
JRTCSE employs a double-blind review process, where both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other. This ensures unbiased and fair evaluations.
3.4 Reviewer’s Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide a thorough, constructive, and timely review of the manuscript. They should assess the manuscript’s originality, technical quality, clarity, and contribution to the field. Reviewers should also check for any ethical issues, such as plagiarism or data fabrication.
3.5 Review Timeline
Reviewers are typically given 1-2 weeks to complete their evaluation. Extensions can be granted upon request.
3.6 Reviewer Confidentiality
All reviews must be conducted confidentially. Reviewers should not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or review details with anyone outside the review process.
3.7 Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editorial team and recuse themselves if they feel they cannot provide an impartial review.
3.8 Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
- Accept with no changes
- Accept with minor revisions
- Request major revisions and resubmission
- Reject
3.9 Revision Process
If revisions are required, authors will be given a specified period to make the necessary changes and resubmit the manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers or new reviewers for re-evaluation.
3.10 Final Acceptance
The final decision to accept a manuscript for publication lies with the editor-in-chief, based on the recommendations of the reviewers and the handling editor.
4. Ethical Considerations
4.1 Plagiarism Detection
All submissions are screened for plagiarism using appropriate detection tools. Manuscripts with significant levels of plagiarism will be rejected.
4.2 Data Integrity
Authors must ensure the integrity and authenticity of their data. Any concerns raised by reviewers regarding data accuracy must be addressed satisfactorily.
4.3 Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts and related communications are confidential and will not be disclosed outside the editorial and review process.
4.4 Reviewer Misconduct
Any misconduct by reviewers, such as breach of confidentiality or use of manuscript content for personal advantage, will be investigated and addressed appropriately.
5. Responsibilities
5.1 Editors
- Ensure the peer review process is fair, timely, and unbiased.
- Select appropriate reviewers based on expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.
- Communicate clearly with authors and reviewers throughout the review process.
- Make the final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection.
5.2 Reviewers
- Provide objective, constructive, and timely reviews.
- Maintain confidentiality and disclose any conflicts of interest.
- Suggest improvements to enhance the manuscript’s quality.
5.3 Authors
- Submit manuscripts that are original, accurate, and not under consideration elsewhere.
- Respond to reviewer comments and make necessary revisions promptly.
- Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
6. Feedback and Appeals
6.1 Author Feedback
Authors are encouraged to provide feedback on the review process. This can help improve the quality and efficiency of the review system.
6.2 Appeal Process
Authors who believe their manuscript has been unfairly rejected can appeal the decision by providing a detailed explanation and justification. The appeal will be reviewed by the editor-in-chief and, if necessary, by additional reviewers.
7. Policy Review and Updates
This peer review policy is subject to periodic review and updates to reflect the evolving standards and practices in academic publishing. Changes to the policy will be communicated to all stakeholders.
Contact Information: For any queries or further information regarding the peer review process, please contact the editorial office at jrtcse@gmail.com.
