Peer Review Process

Submission and Initial Screening

Once a manuscript is submitted to the journal, it undergoes an initial screening by the editorial office to ensure that:

  • The manuscript adheres to the journal’s scope and aims.
  • The submission complies with the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.
  • The manuscript is free from major issues related to plagiarism, as checked by plagiarism detection software.

Submissions that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the authors without further review.

Assignment to an Editor

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor with expertise in the subject area. The editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance, novelty, and suitability for the journal. If deemed appropriate, the manuscript is sent out for peer review. If the manuscript is considered unsuitable, it may be desk-rejected with appropriate feedback to the authors.

Selection of Reviewers

The handling editor selects two or more independent peer reviewers with subject matter expertise. Reviewers are chosen based on the following criteria:

  • Expertise in the relevant field of study.
  • No conflicts of interest with the authors or institutions involved.
  • A track record of publishing and/or reviewing in the relevant subject area.

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other to maintain impartiality.

Peer Review Process

Reviewers are given 2-4 weeks to evaluate the manuscript and provide a detailed report. The review covers:

  • Originality and Novelty: Is the work original and does it contribute new knowledge to the field?
  • Methodology: Is the research design sound and appropriate for the research questions?
  • Results and Discussion: Are the results clearly presented, and do the conclusions align with the findings?
  • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, and is the language clear and precise?
  • References: Are the citations adequate and appropriate?

Reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revisions
  • Minor revisions required
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Reviewers may also provide constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the handling editor makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief, who makes the final decision. The possible outcomes are:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted with no further changes.
  • Minor Revisions: The authors are required to make small adjustments to the manuscript based on reviewer feedback.
  • Major Revisions: The authors are required to significantly revise the manuscript. The revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form and is rejected.

Author Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are requested, the authors are given a set period (usually 2-4 weeks) to revise the manuscript and address the reviewers' comments. The authors should submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a detailed response letter outlining how they addressed the reviewers' concerns.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

Final Decision

Once the revised manuscript has been submitted and reviewed (if necessary), the editor makes the final decision on whether to accept the manuscript for publication. The decision is communicated to the authors along with any additional final formatting or language editing requirements.

Post-Acceptance

After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production stage, where it is formatted, proofread, and prepared for publication. Authors are provided with proofs for final corrections before publication.

Ethical Considerations

The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality about the manuscript during and after the review process.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality.
  • Provide fair and constructive feedback without personal bias.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal decisions if they believe their manuscript was rejected unfairly. Appeals should be directed to the executive editor with a clear explanation. The appeal process will involve a re-evaluation of the manuscript and reviewer feedback by independent experts, if necessary.

 

This peer review process is designed to ensure that all submissions to Rheedea are evaluated rigorously, fairly, and transparently, with the goal of maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity and quality.