- About the Journal
- Aims & Scope
- Editorial Board
- Editorial Advisory Board
- Abstracting & Indexing
- Authors Guidelines
- Ethical Guidelines/Policy
- Review Policy
- Plagiarism Policy
- Publication & Editorial Policy
- Publication Fee Policy
- Open Access & Copyright Policy
- Complaint Procedure
- Archiving Policy
The review policy of RAMSSis an integral part of the publishing process of the scholarly submissions made. All papers published in RAMSS undergo a double-blind peer-review process by which experts in the relevant field of the paper review and give comments to authors regarding the suitability of the paper for publication. The objective is to ensure the academic quality and rigor of the publication process.
Double-Blind Review Policy
All papers submitted to RAMSS undergo various steps of a rigorous double-blind review process by which both reviewer’s and author’s identity is not disclosed to each other in order to ensure independent review and avoid any potential conflict of interests.
Duration of Review and Publication
In order to meet the growing requirements by the authors for an efficient review and publication, the journal has taken appropriate measures to speed up the process yet without compromising on the quality of the publication. The first step is desk review whereby a paper is screened by the chief editor/editor himself and/or assigned to the editorial board. This normally takes 15-20 days after submission of the paper in order to check the similarity score, appropriateness of the study with journal scope and objectives. Email is sent to the corresponding author regarding the decision of this initial screening usually within a month. After a paper goes through initial screening successfully, the paper undergoes a review process by the peers, in the second step, by which it is sent to two reviewers who are experienced academics in the area of research the paper focuses on. These reviewers make comments on originality, contribution, appropriateness of flow of discussion, and references cited in the study. After this step, review reports are sent to all authors of the paper with a letter of acceptance conditioned to fulfillment of revisions in due time or rejection/excuse. This step usually takes another 30-45 days. The third step is about sending a revised copy to the copy editors who look at proofreading and editing of the paper and their report is sent to the corresponding author as well. Authors are requested to submit the proofread and edited copy of the paper within 1-3 weeks after which the paper is sent for production. A print copy is sent to the corresponding author on request after publication. The journal has introduced an early online production system by which the advance copy of the paper is published and available online before the hard copy publication.
Editorial Role in the Review Process and Conflict of Interest Policy
In order to maintain rigor and independence of the review process, the papers are sent to well-established scholars in the relevant field. The reviewers are different from the editorial board members. The role of editorial board members is to recommend the potential reviewers for the papers and manage the review process assigned by the managing editor.
In order to avoid conflict of interest, when papers are received from any of the editorial members, the chief editor assigns such paper to the alternate editorial members to manage the review and publication process in order to maintain independence and neutrality.
Following are the ethical guidelines for Peer Reviewers as per Journal’s SOPs
- The reviewers can only review the manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper and timely assessment.
- The reviewers are expected to respect the confidentiality of peer review and not to disclose any details of a manuscript.
- The reviewers will not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their personal or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to harm or disgrace others.
- They will declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
- They are also not allowed for any kind of discrimination based on origins of a manuscript, nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
- The reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making defamatory or derogatory personal comments.
- They will provide accurate information regarding their personal and professional expertise.
- It should also be recognized that impersonation of another individual during the review process will be considered serious misconduct.
- The reviewers are independent in making reviews of the article as they deem fit or think appropriate.
For a detailed account of the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers developed by COPE, please access the following document: http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf