Peer Review Process

All research articles, published in RSYA journals undergo a punctilious process of peer review. This typically entails thorough evaluation by a minimum of three independent and research area expert peer reviewers. It is important to note that the peer review procedures is fixed for all RSYA journals under the statement of ‘Double Blind Review Peer Process.’  

We ensure all authors/members/reviewers and research community that, the journal is devoted to promoting equality, inclusiveness, and diversity within its editorial staff and in its decision-making procedures. Each application will be evaluated on its own merits without consideration of the applicant’s seniority or institutional connection. We do not discriminate on the basis of age, marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, race, color, or religious creed; mental or physical disability; sex (including pregnancy; childbirth; and related medical conditions); sexual orientation; medical condition; genetic information; gender identity; or expression.

Double Blind Peer Review Process  : “Double-blind peer review: Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least three or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue.” 

 

Following is the journey of your manuscript form submitting to acceptance.

  • Authors submit their research paper to the journal or conference for review.
  • The paper is assigned a unique identification number for tracking purposes.
  • The editorial team reviews the submission to ensure it meets the basic requirements of the journal or conference, such as the topic relevance and adherence to formatting guidelines.
  • If the paper fails to meet the criteria, it may be desk rejected and returned to the authors without further review.
  • The editorial team removes any identifying information from the paper to ensure anonymity during the review process.
  • This typically involves removing author names, affiliations, and any explicit self-citations that may reveal the authors’ identities.
  • The editorial team identifies potential reviewers with expertise in the subject area of the paper.
  • Reviewers are typically selected based on their qualifications, research interests, and prior experience.
  • Reviewers are assigned papers without knowing the identities of the authors.
  • Reviewers independently assess the assigned papers, evaluating their originality, methodology, results, and significance.
  • Reviewers provide feedback and recommendations for improvement to the authors.
  • Reviewers remain unaware of each other’s identities or the identities of the authors.
  • The editorial team collects the reviews and considers the feedback provided by the reviewers.
  • Based on the reviews, the editorial team makes a decision regarding the paper’s acceptance, rejection, or request for revision.
  • The decision is communicated to the authors, usually along with the feedback received from the reviewers.
  • If the paper is accepted with revisions, the authors are given an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.
  • The revised version is submitted back to the journal or conference for further evaluation.
  • The revised paper, along with the authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments, is reviewed again by the editorial team.
  • The final decision is made based on the revised paper and the authors’ response.
  • The decision (acceptance, rejection, or further revision) is communicated to the authors.

Principal Reasons for Revisions/Rejections

  • Need explanation, clarification, more information
  • Low quality of figures
  • Improve discussion of results by including other (recent) references
  • Improve readability of the manuscript; proof-reading/copyediting for improving English grammar.
  • Acknowledgements to funding agency (strongly encouraged)
  • The experimental design needs adjustments and/or requires appropriate controls.
  • New experimental data should be provided to support the conclusion.
  • Results in Figures must be re-done and confirmed.
  • The manuscript does not comply the editorial requirements
  • Out of scope
  • Lack of mechanistic explanation of the therapeutic and preventive effect
  • Lack of originality
  • Ethical issues
  • Data do not support the conclusion
  • Other causes for rejection are
    • Plagiarism (including self-plagiarism)
    • Data duplication or “salami splicing” (splitting the data in two or more articles).
    • Data manipulation (manipulation of images)
Scroll to Top