Peer Review Process

1. Submission and Initial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial office to ensure alignment with the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and basic quality requirements. Manuscripts may also be screened for originality using tools such as Turnitin.

2. Anonymization

The journal adheres to a double-blind review system. Authors are required to remove all identifying information from their manuscripts. The editorial team further ensures that submissions are fully anonymized before being sent for review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts are assigned to qualified reviewers based on their subject expertise, research background, and experience in the relevant field. Typically, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

4. Review Process

Reviewers assess the manuscript on multiple criteria, including:

• Originality and contribution to the field
• Methodological rigor and accuracy
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Clarity, structure, and presentation
• Ethical compliance

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

6. Editorial Decision and Communication

The editorial team reviews the referees’ reports and makes a decision accordingly. Authors are informed of the decision along with anonymized reviewer comments.

7. Revision and Re-evaluation

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in line with reviewer feedback. Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, depending on the extent of revisions.

8. Final Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the editorial board, based on reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of revisions.

9. Ethics and Confidentiality

All participants in the review process are expected to adhere to strict ethical standards. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and disclose any conflicts of interest. The journal follows guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics.

10. Continuous Improvement

RRIJM is committed to continually improving the peer review process. Feedback from authors, reviewers, and editors is encouraged to enhance transparency, efficiency, and fairness.