Peer Review Process

The RPD adheres to a strict and rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review Process right from the initial stage of submission to publication decision.

  1. Submission of Manuscript

Upon author’s submission of the manuscript, which could be a research article, review article, or a case study, it is initially screened by an associate editor team to ensure that the manuscript adheres to journal’s aim and scope, formatting and basic standards. At this stage, the manuscript is also screened for plagiarism and AI similarity.

  1. Editorial Assessment

After passing the initial screening, the manuscript is sent to the managing editor, who identifies appropriate peer reviewers and experts in the manuscript’s subject matter. The author (s) may also be asked to suggest reviewers’ names, although the managing editor has the final say in the choice of reviewers. Ideally, the reviewers are individuals who have expertise in the field, are impartial, and do not have any conflicts of interest (such as professional relationships or direct competition with the authors). They may be asked to evaluate the manuscript for clarity, methodology, originality, significance, and ethical considerations.

  1. Preparation for Double-Blind Review

After finalizing the reviewers’ names, the manuscript is anonymized by keeping both the authors’ and reviewers' identities confidential. Authors are typically required to remove information like their names, affiliations, and acknowledgments, from the manuscript and any supplementary files. The title page (or cover letter) often contains author details, and this information is stripped before sending the manuscript to reviewers. In case of intext citations, the authors must also be careful if they refer to their own prior published works that would allow reviewers to deduce their identity (e.g., writing "Author (2020)" instead of "Smith (2020)"). Reviewers, in turn, are also typically invited to review the manuscript without knowing who the authors are. The reviewer's name and affiliation are usually kept hidden from the authors.

 

  1. Peer Review Process

   Each reviewers evaluates the manuscript and provides feedback on the following criteria:

  • Quality of research: Does the manuscript provide new insights, original research, or an innovative approach?
  • Clarity and structure: Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?
  • Methodological rigor: Are the research methods sound, ethical, and appropriately applied?
  • Significance and contribution: Does the manuscript significantly advance knowledge in its field?
  • References and citations: Are the references relevant, sufficient, and up-to-date?

  After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers submit recommendations to the editor. The options usually include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is of high quality and can be published (rare, especially on the first submission).
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes or clarifications before it can be published.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes or additional experiments before it can be considered for publication.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or does not present significant contributions to the field.

Reviewers’ feedback is compiled and sent to the authors, often alongside the editor's own comments. Reviewers' identities still remain anonymous to the authors. The feedback can sometimes be harsh or critical, but its purpose is to improve the manuscript's quality.

  1. Author’s Response and Revision

Authors revise the manuscript according to the feedback they receive from reviewers. They may need to address concerns, clarify arguments, provide additional data, or modify aspects of the manuscript to meet reviewers' suggestions. In some cases, authors may also include a response letter outlining how they have addressed each point raised by the reviewers. Once revisions are made, the authors resubmit the manuscript to the journal. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation, or it may be evaluated by new reviewers.

  1. Second Round of Review (If Applicable)

If significant revisions were made, the editor may send the revised manuscript back to the same reviewers or select new reviewers to assess the changes. Based on reviewers' comments and the authors' revisions, the editor finally decides whether to accept, further revise, or reject the manuscript. The decision may also include additional requests for revisions.

 

  1. Publication Decision

Once the manuscript has been accepted, the paper goes through the final stages of publication, which include copyediting, typesetting, and proofing. If the manuscript is rejected, authors can often appeal the decision, though this is rare. The authors are advised to submit the manuscript to a different journal.

 

  1. Post-Publication (Optional)

Corrections and Retractions: If any issues are identified post-publication (such as errors, ethical concerns, or data inconsistencies), the journal may issue corrections or retractions, though this is relatively rare.