PEER REVIEWING POLICIES
§ All submissions to RITHA Publishing House's scientific journals and book series undergo double-blind peer review. This ensures that the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Maintaining the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, double-blind peer review promotes fairness, objectivity, and transparency in the evaluation process. It allows manuscripts to be assessed solely on the basis of their scholarly merit, regardless of the authors' backgrounds or reputations. This not only upholds the credibility and integrity of the peer review process but also enhances the overall quality and reliability of the manuscripts published by RITHA Publishing House.
§ Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience in the relevant field of study. They should have a strong academic background and a track record of publications in reputable journals. Recruiting reviewers with such extensive qualifications and credentials, RITHA Publishing House ensures that manuscripts submitted for review receive thorough, insightful, and constructive feedback from experts who possess the requisite knowledge and expertise to evaluate the research rigorously. This peer review process not only upholds the credibility and quality of the publications but also fosters a culture of academic excellence, integrity, and innovation within the scholarly community.
§ Reviewers receive comprehensive guidelines on how to evaluate submissions. These guidelines refer to sources which serve as a roadmap for reviewers, outlining key criteria and considerations to ensure assessment of each manuscript's scholarly merit, originality, and adherence to ethical standards, as follows:
- Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts by Sense About Science (SAS)
- Peer review: An Introduction and Guide, PRC
- COPE’s Ethical guidelines for reviewers
- Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics
- The Council of Science Editors (CSE) gives guidelines on roles and responsibilities in peer review
- Reviewing Journal Manuscripts, by Charon Pierson
§ Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their evaluation of the manuscript. Similarly, authors are expected to declare any conflicts of interest related to their research.
Editors and manners of managing specific conflicts
- Submission by an editor. A manuscript submitted by a RITHA Publishing’s editor or member of Editorial Advisory Board will be handled by one of the other associate editors who are not at the same institution as the submitting author. The chosen associate editor will select referees and make all decisions on the manuscript. Moreover, the publishing system, does not allow a conflicted editor to be assigned to work to relevant information concerning their manuscript. If the case, a conflicted editor will be blocked from participating in any discussion among the editors pertaining to such manuscripts.
- Submission by author from same institution as one of the editors. A manuscript submitted by an author who is at the same institution as one of the editors will be handled by another editors who is not at that specific institution. Another editor will select reviewers and make all decisions on the paper.
- Potential conflict of interest for reviewers. The RITHA publishing attempts to prevent conflicts of interest by not inviting reviewers from the same institutions as authors. However, previous relationships or places of employment may not be obvious, therefore the invitation to potential reviewers, the editors will ask that they decline to review if they know, or guess the identity of the author.
§ Upon submission, manuscripts are assigned to qualified reviewers who evaluate the quality and validity of the research. Reviewers evaluate using a Reviewing Form specially designed provided by the handling editor to determine the scholarly merit and validity of the research findings. Reviewers provide detailed feedback to the editors, highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in the manuscript. Editors carefully consider the reviewers' comments and recommendations when making decisions on the manuscript's publication. Depending on the feedback received, manuscripts may be accepted for publication, accepted with minor revisions, returned to the authors for major revisions with re-submit recommendation, or rejected. In cases where revisions are requested, authors are provided with clear and constructive guidance to address the reviewers' concerns and enhance the quality and clarity of their work.
§ RITHA Publishing House encourages post-publication peer review through comments and discussions on published articles. This allows for ongoing evaluation and discussion of the research even after publication.
§ Authors are kept informed about the status of their submissions throughout the review process. Reviewers receive timely notifications and reminders to complete their evaluations.
§ RITHA Publishing House adheres to strict publication ethics guidelines and expects authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, honesty, and transparency.
RITHA Publishing House regularly reviews and updates its peer-reviewing policies to ensure effectiveness, fairness, and alignment with best practices in scholarly publishing.
These peer reviewing policies were last updated on January, 2024.