1. Review Process Overview:
• Stringent, constructive, swift, and open
• Comprises two stages: independent and interactive, collaborative reviews
• Identity Transparency: Single anonymized approach—reviewer remains anonymous to the author, while the author's identity is disclosed to the reviewer; both identities are visible to the decision-making editor
• Reviewers engage with the handling editor and authors
• Published Review Information: Reveals reviewer and editor identities
• Average Time from Submission to Final Decision: 61 days
How It Functions:
Our collaborative peer review system prioritizes quality and upholds researchers' rights to subject their work to a thorough, constructive, and transparent evaluation. The review process is managed by active researchers selected for editorial boards based on stringent excellence criteria, endorsing the legitimacy of research by associating their names with published articles.
We emphasize that peer review should revolve around objective criteria for the work's validity and quality. It must be rigorous, impartial, constructive, accountable, and transparent. Moreover, the process needs to be efficient. To meet these standards, we have devised an innovative, award-winning collaborative review platform that connects authors, reviewers, and handling editors online, ensuring the highest quality service. Continuous innovation is our commitment, providing state-of-the-art tools and services for an efficient peer review.
Every submission, including those in themed Research Topic collections, undergoes an identical rigorous review process.
1.Rscope Editorial Hub Unveiled
Recognizing the time constraints researchers face in dedicating themselves to peer review, coupled with the inefficiencies in the current review invitation process, we introduce the Rscope Editorial Management System. This platform empowers the review editors of Rscope Collective Journals to:
• Browse through submitted manuscripts to our journals
• Identify submissions aligned with their expertise
• Extend support to colleagues and the community by volunteering to review these submissions
• Contribute as a reviewer at their convenience
Explore rems.rscope.org for detailed insights.
Rscope Collective Journals Discover also ensures that our editors retain control over the peer review process. Every review editor volunteering through the platform undergoes scrutiny by our associate editors, specialty chief editors, or field chief editors, guaranteeing an optimal peer review experience.
Principles of Peer Review at Rscope Collective Journals
Rscope Collective Journals maintains stringent quality standards for both manuscripts and the peer review process, guided by explicit criteria and dedicated teams. Manuscripts meeting these criteria are accepted, while those falling short are rejected. Our evaluation does not hinge on perceived potential impact, nor do we set rejection rates, formal or informal. Instead, we assess the value and validity of presented work through meticulous quality checks, entrusting our editorial boards with content decisions.
Handling editors and reviewers hold the authority to recommend rejection at any stage, while editors make acceptance decisions. Chief editors make final calls on both acceptance and rejection. Rscope Collective Journals' in-house research integrity team conducts pre- and post-review quality screens, rejecting articles that do not meet acceptance criteria (outlined below). This approach ensures a robust peer review, expeditious decisions, and the publication of high-quality research.
Expectations for All Involved Parties:
Authors:
Submission of manuscripts with significant scholarly value within the journal's scope, adherence to editorial and ethical policies, and thoughtful consideration of reviewer and editor comments.
Reviewers:
As subject experts, assess manuscripts using the quality assessment tool and designated review questionnaire, prioritizing scientific quality, rigor, and validity. Evaluate the methodology for solidity, ensuring valid conclusions supported by sufficient data.
Editors:
As subject experts, meticulously assess the peer-review process and manuscripts, endorsing publication only when reviewers validate the content.
Chief Editors, Handling Editors, Reviewers, and Authors: Guided and supported by our peer review team, ensuring high-quality standards for manuscripts and peer review. Certifying the quality, scientific rigor, and validity of research articles while fostering collaboration among authors, reviewers, and editors.
Doubts during the peer-review process can be directed to the peer review team, which comprises two specialized sub-teams: research integrity and editorial review operations, serving as the primary point of contact for guidance.
Full Peer Review Guidelines at Rscope Collective Journals
All article types within our journals undergo a comprehensive peer review process, with the exception of Editorials, Classifications, and Grand Challenges.
The complete collaborative peer review process is structured in two distinct phases:
1. Independent Review:
During the independent review phase, reviewers individually assess the manuscript without influence from each other or the authors. This evaluation is carried out based on a standardized review template tailored to each specific article type.
2. Interactive Review:
In the interactive review phase, authors and reviewers engage in real-time interactions through comments in the discussion forum. The primary goal is to address all concerns raised about the manuscript. The handling editor supervises this phase, and, if necessary, the specialty chief editor may also participate in the review forum.
These two phases ensure a thorough and constructive evaluation of each manuscript, promoting transparency and collaboration among authors, reviewers, and editors throughout the peer review process.
Post-Submission Steps at Rscope Collective Journals
Following manuscript submission, our editorial office initiates a pre-screening process to ensure research integrity and uphold quality standards. If the manuscript aligns with Rscope Collective Journals' quality criteria, an editor from the relevant specialty section is invited to oversee the peer-review process. After an initial content check, the editor determines whether to proceed with the review or recommend immediate rejection to the specialty chief editor.
In the event of a recommendation for immediate rejection, the specialty chief editor may confirm this decision based on the following reasons:
1. Objective errors in methods, applications, or interpretations that hinder further consideration.
2. Ethical issues identified that prevent further review or publication.
3. The manuscript does not meet the established journal standards for publication (refer to full rejection criteria above).
Despite this, the specialty chief editor retains the authority to override the handling editor's recommendation and may decide that the manuscript warrants a review before reaching a final decision. In such cases, a new handling editor is assigned to conduct another assessment.
The handling editor proceeds to invite experts for manuscript review, with most article types requiring at least two reviewers. Reviewers are either selected from the board of review editors or appropriately recruited from experts in the field. This multi-step process ensures a rigorous evaluation of submitted manuscripts, promoting the quality and integrity of research published in our journals.
Manuscript Acceptance and Rejection Processes at Rscope Collective Journals
Manuscript Acceptance:
Reviewers' Endorsement: If reviewers endorse the manuscript for publication in its current form, they must complete and finalize their review reports, automatically notifying the handling editor.
1. Acceptance Criteria:
For acceptance consideration, the manuscript must:
. Be deemed VALID according to the acceptance criteria.
. Have an editor and the minimum required independent reviewers assigned for the article type.
. Be endorsed by a majority of the assigned, non-withdrawn reviewers.
1. Handling Editor Decision:
The handling editor can either accept the final version of the manuscript or request further changes as necessary, typically within a few days. Acceptance by the handling editor is independent and does not require approval from the specialty chief editor.
2. Final Validation Phase:
Accepted manuscripts enter the final validation phase. Rscope Collective Journals' peer review team conducts technical and quality checks, including the adequacy of the review process. If the manuscript fails these checks, it may return to review for issue resolution, or the provisional acceptance decision can be overridden, leading to rejection without publication.
3. Article Processing Charge (APC):
The article processing charge (APC) is payable within 30 days of acceptance, and it must be settled before the final publication of the manuscript.
Manuscript Rejection:
Insufficient Reviewer Endorsement: If the minimum required number of reviewers to endorse the manuscript is not met (typically two, and must be a majority), the handling editor recommends rejection to the specialty chief editor.
1. Decision Authority:
The final rejection decision is usually made by the specialty chief editor but can also be made by the research integrity team based on the rejection criteria outlined above.
2. No Charges for Rejected Manuscripts:
If a manuscript is rejected, no article processing charge (APC) or other fees are imposed.
Editorial Policies: Conflicts of Interest at Rscope Collective Journals
Commitment to Ethical Standards:
Rscope Collective Journals is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and considers conflicts of interest and publication malpractice with utmost seriousness.
Types of Conflicts of Interest:
Conflicts of interest encompass personal, financial, and professional affiliations or relationships that may be perceived as influencing the publication process.
Disclosure Requirement: All authors and members of Rscope Collective Journals' editorial boards are obligated to disclose both actual and potential conflicts of interest at the time of submission or upon accepting an editorial or review assignment.
Transparent Review System:
Our review system is meticulously designed to ensure a transparent and objective editorial and review process. As handling editor and reviewers' names are disclosed publicly upon article publication, any conflicts of interest become openly apparent.
Authors' Responsibility:
Authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest during the submission process. To facilitate this, authors should consider the following questions and disclose any positive answers. Failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest during submission requires prompt communication with the journal's editorial office, providing details at the earliest opportunity.
Questions for Authors to Consider:
1. Do you have any financial interests related to the subject matter of the manuscript?
2. Are you affiliated with organizations that could be perceived as having a vested interest in the research?
3. Have you received any funding or support for the research that might create a conflict of interest?
4. Do you have personal relationships with individuals that might be affected by the publication of the manuscript?
Prompt Disclosure: Authors are encouraged to contact the journal's editorial office promptly if there is any oversight in disclosing potential conflicts of interest during the submission process. Open communication ensures the integrity and transparency of the publication process at Rscope Collective Journals.