IJRDO Journal

Reviewer Guidelines

Archiving Policy

IJRDO Publications provides the unquestionable digital archiving to maintain the long-term preservation and accessibility to all published content. Our publishing platform is used to ensure that all articles are securely stored and maintained, ensuring that they can always be accessed for scholarly purposes. The authors are allowed to place the final published version of their article in institutional repositories, in their personal web pages or in other recognized platforms, depending on the article, provided that they include the proper citation to the original publication. IJRDO is based on the principles of Open access and promotes wider dissemination of research with maintaining the integrity and permanency of the scholarly record.

We participate in

  • LOCKSS
  • CLOCKSS
  • PKP Preservation Network (PKP|PN)

For decentralized, secure and permanent archiving.

Advertising Policy

IJRDO Journals strives to ensure the editorial independence, academic integrity and transparency in all its journals. All advertising and promotional material appearing on the IJRDO journal websites or publications should be clearly identified as advertising/promotional material. No part of the advertising shall affect the editorial quality, editorial peer-review, manuscript acceptance, publication or the selection of editors or peer-reviewers. The editorial work is done without reference to or dependency upon the other editorial staff members, and follows established journal policies and academic standards.

IJRDO Journals reserves the right to review, approve, reject, remove content that is misleading, inappropriate, unlawful, offensive and conflicting with the journal's academic or professional standards. The journal, the publisher, the editors or editorial board shall not be held responsible for the accuracy of any endorsement implied by advertising.

When advertising is allowed it will be displayed in a separate section from editorial material, thus keeping advertising separate from scholarly information. Advertising arrangements give no access or control to confidential manuscript information nor have an impact on the publication process to the advertiser.

IJRDO Journals may occasionally update its advertising policies as a part of keeping abreast of the ethical publishing principles and standards for responsible scholarly communication.

IJRDO Publications is working on a policy of a double-blind peer review system where both the reviewers and authors are anonymous. This ensures that the manuscripts submitted are evaluated fairly, unbiasedly and objectively. The reviewers are expected to abide by the following guidelines and are of great value in ensuring that published research is of high quality and integrity.

Responsibility of the Reviewer

A reviewer should give critical consideration to a manuscript in his field of specialization and give honest, constructive and respectful comments. The review should clearly point out the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, suggest improvements and evaluate the originality, relevance and scientific contribution of the manuscript.

Before Accepting the Review

The following should be considered by the reviewers before agreeing to review a manuscript:

Knowledge

Make sure that the topic of the manuscript is within your area of expertise. Otherwise the review request would be denied.

Availability

Reviews should take about a week. If cannot be met, tell editor or recommend another reviewer.

Conflict of Interest

All potential conflict (academic, professional or personal) should be reported to the editor before the review is undertaken.

Reviewing the Manuscript

During the review process, emphasis should be placed upon the overall quality, structure and scientific approach of the manuscript:

Content Quality & Originality

The manuscript must be novel, significant and relevant research. The reviewers should determine whether the study builds on previous research and the importance of the research question for the field. A comparison with similar published research (such as in the indexed literature, from Scopus or a similar database) can be helpful.

Structure & Presentation

The manuscript should be presented in the format of the journal. Although minor formatting problems can be corrected later, major structural problems should be indicated for the editor.

Clarity and Organization

  • Title & Abstract: Should be informative about the content and significance of the study.
  • Introduction: Must state the research problem and background to the problem.
  • Methodology: Should be clear, reproducible, and appropriate for the study.
  • Results: Must be presented logically (interpretation is not needed).
  • Discussion & Conclusion: Must include results and tie in to research objectives.

Tables, Figures & Data

Figures and tables must be relevant, clearly labeled and be representative of the data. They have to improve the comprehension of the manuscript.

Language & Readability

If the quality of the language is such that it makes it difficult to understand then reviewers should state this. Language correction is not mandatory, but should be identified if required.

Scope

Make sure that the manuscript is within the scope and aims of the journal.

Guidelines for Reviewer Comments

The following guidelines provide general guidelines for the comments by the reviewers. Reviewers should ensure that the comments they make are clear, structured and constructive in order to guide the author to improve the article. Comments should be friendly, specific, and detailed. A good review will contain the following:

  • Manuscript Summary and its contribution.
  • One of the positive aspects of the study is:
  • Any weaknesses or areas for improvement.
  • Practical tips on how the piece can be improved (revision – major and minor).
  • Comments on originality and methodology and relevance.
  • Clarity, structure and readability feedback.

The reviewers should be sure to distinguish between comments for the editor and comments for the author.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to take into account:

  • Originality and contribution to the field.
  • Will be relevant to the scope of the journal.
  • Adequacy of literature review.
  • Soundness of methodology.
  • Clear results and conclusion.
  • The practical or theoretical implications.

Recommendation

Once reviewers have finished the review they should make a recommendation to the editor. The final decision rests with the editor, based on the reviewers' comments. Possible recommendations include:

Accept

Minor Revisions

Major Revisions

Reject

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are urged to adhere to high ethical standards during the review process:

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts should be kept as confidential documents.
  • Objectivity: Review should be objective and use clear reasoning.
  • Identification of Citations: Look for any missing citations and/or any overlap with other work.
  • Conflict of Interest: Avoid manuscripts with conflicts of interest.
  • Integrity: Do not take advantage of unpublished material.

Failure to adhere to this or to report conflicts of interest or manipulation of the review process can result in withdrawal from the reviewer role.

Final Note

Peer Review is the cooperative action of authors, reviewers and editors. Timely, professional and constructive comments from reviewers are encouraged to enable the publication of quality research articles.