Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Objective: The primary objective of this peer review policy is to ensure the highest standards of academic rigor, originality, and significance in the research published by Research Corridor Journal of Engineering Science (RCJES).

Peer Review Model: RCJES employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process. In this model, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential from each other throughout the evaluation process to ensure an unbiased and objective assessment.

Scope: This policy applies to all original research manuscripts submitted to RCJES.

Peer Review Process:

  1. Initial Screening: All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess suitability for the journal's scope and quality, including a mandatory plagiarism check. Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements will be rejected without review (Desk Rejection).

  2. Reviewer Selection: For manuscripts that pass screening, the Editor-in-Chief selects at least two independent, external reviewers based on their expertise. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors or the research.

  3. Review Process: Reviewers assess the manuscript's originality, methodology, and clarity using a standardized review form. They provide constructive feedback and a recommendation for publication.

  4. Confidentiality: The process is strictly confidential. Reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors, and authors are required to submit anonymized manuscripts (removing names and affiliations from the main file) to facilitate the double-blind process.

  5. Decision-Making: Based on the independent reviewers' assessments and the Editor-in-Chief's evaluation, one of the following decisions will be made:

    • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.

    • Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes.

    • Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions): The manuscript requires significant changes and potentially a new round of review.

    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Provide a timely and thorough review of the manuscript.

  • Assess the manuscript's originality, significance, methodology, and overall contribution.

  • Offer constructive feedback and maintain strict confidentiality.

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest immediately.

Editorial Responsibilities:

  • Ensure the fairness and impartiality of the peer review process.

  • Maintain the integrity of the double-blind system.

  • Communicate editorial decisions to authors in a timely manner.

  • Address any concerns or ethical issues that arise during the review.

Appeal Process: Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal will be reviewed by an independent panel of experts not involved in the original review.