Rscope Collective Journals operates a single-blind peer review model, aiming to ensure a comprehensive assessment of submitted manuscripts. In this process, reviewers are aware of the authors' identities to provide context to their evaluations and to prevent potential conflicts of interest.

Rscope Collective Journals emphasizes transparency and acknowledges reviewers for their contributions. The names of endorsing reviewers are disclosed upon publication for every article to maintain transparency and eliminate bias in the peer review process.

Collaborative Peer Review:

Rscope Collective Journals employs a collaborative peer review platform that brings together authors, reviewers, and handling editors for direct online interactions, fostering quick iterations and consensus-building. Editors and reviewers collaborate with authors to enhance the quality of their manuscripts.

Independent Review Phase:

Upon accepting the review invitation, reviewers receive an email with a link to the online review forum. In this phase, reviewers independently assess the manuscript and supporting documents. A tailored review questionnaire, specific to each article type, guides reviewers in providing their feedback. Reviewers submit their recommendations to the editor, potentially endorsing the manuscript if it meets acceptance criteria.

After all reviewers submit their reports, the handling editor activates the Interactive Review phase. Even if initial reviews are unfavorable, the collaborative review forum allows authors the opportunity for a rebuttal.

Interactive Review Phase:

During this phase, authors are notified and can view and respond to reviewers' comments within the review forum. Reviewers are alerted when authors reply or resubmit their manuscripts based on reviewer comments. Reviewers can engage in a dialogue with authors for clarifications or additional revisions. They also have access to and can comment on other reviewers' reports.

If reviewers believe the authors have addressed necessary changes and the paper is suitable for publication, they may endorse it. Alternatively, if they feel the authors have not met the required standards, reviewers can recommend rejection.

Rscope Collective Journals is committed to a transparent, collaborative, and thorough peer review process to uphold the quality of published articles.

How to Peer Review for Rscope Collective Journals: Guidelines and Tips

Reviewers play a crucial role in facilitating communication between authors and handling editors. Drawing on their expertise, reviewers guide fellow researchers in presenting their work in the best possible condition. To assist our valued reviewers, we've compiled some essential tips and considerations for a fair and constructive review process.

Before Accepting the Invitation:

1. Assess Expertise:

Consider if the manuscript aligns with your expertise within Rscope Collective Journals' scope. If not, kindly decline the invitation and suggest relevant alternative experts.

2. Time Commitment:

Ensure you have the time to contribute effectively. Our goal is an efficient process, with reviewers completing reports within 7 days of accepting the invitation. Communicate any time constraints promptly.

3. Conflict of Interest:

Upon accepting the invitation, you'll be asked to complete a short questionnaire addressing conflicts of interest. Disclose any relationships with the authors that may affect the review process. Each case is assessed individually, so provide full disclosure.

Responding to the Invitation:

1. Prompt Response:

Respond promptly to review invitations. If you lack the time or expertise, feel free to decline. We appreciate recommendations for alternative reviewers.

2. Communication on Time Constraints:

If you anticipate a need for more than 7 days to complete the review or encounter delays, reach out to the editorial office. We are here to assist and ensure a smooth process.

During Peer Review:

1. Scope Respect:

Focus on the manuscript's intended scope within Rscope Collective Journals. Avoid suggesting extensive changes beyond the defined scope.

2. Objective Evaluation:

Remain objective. While reviewer names are disclosed for transparency, the assessment should focus solely on the manuscript. Minor copy-editing issues will be addressed by our production team.

3. Constructive Feedback:

Provide polite and constructive feedback, recommending reasonable improvements. Acknowledge positive aspects of the manuscript when applicable.

4. Field-Specific Considerations:

Field-Specific Considerations: If your expertise relates to specific elements in the manuscript, offer feedback based on your field knowledge to enhance the review process.

What to Do:

1. Detailed Feedback:

Be precise and thorough in your feedback. Utilize the provided questionnaire in the collaborative review platform for a comprehensive assessment.

2. Timely Submission:

Ensure timely submission of responses to maintain an efficient review process. If extensions or withdrawal are needed, use the review forum or contact the editorial office.

Keep in Touch:

1. Effective Communication:

For any issues, concerns, or assistance with the manuscript or the review platform, reach out to Rscope Collective Journals' office promptly.

After Peer Review: Recognizing Reviewers:

1. Acknowledgment:

Reviewers endorsing a manuscript are acknowledged by name on the published article, alongside the editor. Their contribution is recognized in the final files.

2. Confidentiality:

If a reviewer recommends rejection or withdraws, their name is not disclosed. Regardless of the decision, reviewers receive a confirmation email acknowledging their valuable work, which can be used for institutional recognition.

Rscope Collective Journals greatly appreciates the dedication and expertise of our reviewers in maintaining the high standards of our peer review process.

During Peer Review:

Before Manuscript Submission:

Before reaching the peer review stage, Rscope Collective Journals' research integrity team and handling editors conduct initial quality checks.

Aims for Reviewers:

The primary goals for our reviewers are to:

. Focus objectively on the quality of the science.

. Collaborate constructively towards improvement.

. Help authors and editors understand necessary changes through clear comments.

Guidelines for Quality Review:

What to Do:

1. Respect the Scope:

. Acknowledge the 'contribution to the field' statement provided by authors, explaining the intended scope and relevance of the manuscript.

. Keep feedback aligned with the manuscript's goals, avoiding recommendations for significant scope expansions.

2. Focus on Science:

. Be objective in your assessment. Frontiers discloses author names for transparency, but reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript rather than the author.

. Avoid flagging small copy-editing errors, as the production team will address those during typesetting. Concentrate solely on the research.

3. Provide Constructive Feedback:

. Offer polite and impersonal feedback that suggests reasonable improvements.

. Put yourself in the authors' position and provide the type of feedback you would appreciate on your own work.

. Acknowledge positive aspects of the manuscript, explaining the reasons behind your praise.

4. Consider Field-Specifics:

Apply your expertise to provide feedback on elements specific to your field. This contribution is valuable for all involved in the review process.

What Not to Do:

1. Avoid Vagueness or Brevity:

. Provide precise and detailed feedback. Vague or brief reports may lead to additional questions from authors, potentially causing delays in the review process.

. Make good use of the detailed questionnaire in the collaborative review platform to ensure a clear and comprehensive assessment.

2. Include Key Points in Initial Report:

. Ensure your initial report is thorough and includes all necessary feedback upfront. While revisions may bring up new questions, your key points should be clearly outlined in the initial report.

. Conclude your report with a clear recommendation for the handling editor, leveraging your expertise to guide the decision-making process.

3. Avoid Dropping Out of Peer Review:

. Submit responses on time to maintain an efficient process for all involved.

. If an extension or withdrawal is necessary, use the review forum or contact the editorial office promptly. Put yourself in the authors' shoes, understanding the anticipation for feedback on their submission.

Keep in Touch:

. Contact the journal's office for any issues, concerns, or assistance during the review process.

. If an extension is needed, or you require support using the review platform, don't hesitate to reach out to the journal's office.

After Peer Review: Recognizing Reviewers:

1. Recognition for Endorsing Manuscripts:

. Reviewers endorsing a manuscript for publication are acknowledged by name on the published article, alongside the editor.

2. Reviewer Recognition:

. If a reviewer recommends rejection or withdraws, their name is not disclosed to authors.

. Regardless of the recommendation, reviewers receive a confirmation email, including a copy of their report. While the report is not shared publicly, reviewers can use the confirmation email for recognition with their institution or other platforms.

. Reports will not be lost even if rejection is recommended or withdrawal occurs later on.

Rscope Collective Journals highly values the dedication and expertise of its reviewers in maintaining the integrity and quality of the peer review process.