1) Objectives of Peer Review
The peer review process at R.E.G aims to:
- Ensure the scientific quality of articles by validating research methodologies, rigor, and results.
- Guarantee content relevance to the journal's themes.
- Encourage original contributions and innovative reflections.
- Strengthen the journal’s credibility and integrity by adhering to high scientific standards.
2) Steps in the Peer Review Process
A) Article Submission
Authors submit their manuscript via the ASJP platform: ASJP Platform Link.
- A confirmation email acknowledges receipt of the manuscript.
B) Initial Verification
The editor-in-chief:
- Checks compliance with submission guidelines and editorial policy.
- Performs plagiarism checks using specialized tools and ensures the manuscript hasn’t been submitted elsewhere.
- Conducts an initial review to assess the manuscript’s relevance and originality.
- Rejects non-compliant manuscripts at this stage.
C) Peer Review
- Manuscripts passing initial checks are assigned to two to three reviewers.
- A double-blind review is conducted, ensuring anonymity of both authors and reviewers.
- Evaluation criteria include: Problem relevance; Methodological rigor; Quality of references andTheoretical or managerial contributions.
D) Evaluation Reports & Editorial Decision
Reviewers submit detailed reports with one of the following recommendations: Acceptance without revisions; Acceptance with minor revisions; Acceptance with major revisions (re-evaluation required after revision) and Rejection
The editor communicates the decision to the author, along with reviewer feedback, via the ASJP platform.
E) Author Revisions
Authors address reviewers’ comments and resubmit a revised manuscript on ASJP. This updated version undergoes a second review by the same reviewers.
F) Final Approval and Publication
Once reviewers validate the revised manuscript:
- It undergoes final formatting by the editorial secretary.
- The editor-in-chief schedules it for publication in the next issue.
3) Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
- Originality: Novel contribution to the field.
- Methodological Rigor: Appropriateness and clarity of methods.
- Clarity and Structure: Logical organization and quality of writing.
- Literature Review: Strength and relevance of theoretical framework.
- Impact: Academic or practical significance of findings.
- Ethics: Compliance with research ethics, including data reliability and plagiarism checks.
4) Roles in the Peer Review Process
A) Authors: Submit scientifically robust manuscripts and Respond promptly to reviewer feedback.
B) Reviewers: Provide objective, constructive, and detailed feedback; Maintain confidentiality and Declare any conflicts of interest.
C) Editorial Committee: Supervise the process to ensure efficiency and fairness and Make informed decisions based on reviews.
5) Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions
Decision Matrix
|
Reviewer 1 |
Reviewer 2 |
Reviewer 3 |
Editor’s Decision |
Post-Correction Re-Evaluation |
|
AF |
AF |
--- |
AF |
--- |
|
AF |
AF/SR/MIN |
--- |
AF |
--- |
|
AF |
AF/SR/MAJ |
--- |
AF/SR |
Required |
|
AF |
AD |
AD |
AD |
--- |
|
AF |
AD |
AF |
AF |
--- |
|
AF/SR/MIN |
AF/SR/MIN |
--- |
AF |
--- |
|
AF/SR/MIN |
AF/SR/MAJ |
--- |
AF/SR |
Required |
|
AF/SR/MIN |
AD |
AD |
AD |
--- |
|
AF/SR/MIN |
AD |
AF |
AF |
--- |
|
AF/SR/MAJ |
AF/SR/MAJ |
--- |
AF/SR |
Required |
|
AF/SR/MAJ |
AD |
--- |
AD |
--- |
Key:
- AF: Favorable Opinion
- AD: Unfavorable Opinion
- AF/SR/MIN: Favorable Opinion with Minor Revisions
- AF/SR/MAJ: Favorable Opinion with Major Revisions
Important Notes
- Articles recommended for AF/SR/MIN require author revisions before acceptance.
- Only manuscripts meeting high-quality standards post-revisions proceed to publication.
