Peer-Review Policy

Peer Review Process

Authors submit their manuscripts via online system or electronically via email to ajis@richtmann.org. Each research manuscript is assigned to an external editor for the double blinded peer review process which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.

The Review Process step by step

All articles submitted to Richtmann Journals undergo to a rigorous double blinded peer review process. The review process may take up to 30-45 days. If reviewers needs more time, authors will be notified for the delay.

I. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. You can use the online system or send it by email.

II. Editorial Office Assessment

The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The Office checks also that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further. The paper at this stage is checked with iThenticate sofware for plagiarism. (Click here for the Originality and Plagiarism Policy)

III. Invitation to Reviewers

The editor sends invitations to individuals that would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained.

IV. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. When declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers or the Editor will invite another one.

V. Review is Conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read and review the paper. The reviewer takes notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

VI. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

VII. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments.The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final

REVISED SUBMISSIONS

Regardless of the file format of the original submission, at revision authors must provide the journal with an editable file of the entire article. Keep the layout of the text as simple as possible. Most formatting codes will be removed and replaced on processing the article. The electronic text should be prepared in a way very similar to that of conventional manuscripts.To avoid unnecessary errors you are strongly advised to use the 'spell-check' and 'grammar-check' functions of your word processor.

How to prepare a Blinded Manuscript

Besides the obvious need to remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript, (this can be dodne from the Editor) there are other steps that need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review. To assist with this process the key items that need to be observed are as follows:

Use the third person to refer to work the Authors have previously undertaken, e.g. replace any phrases like “as we have shown before” with “… has been shown before [Anonymous, 2010]” .

Make sure figures do not contain any affiliation related identifier.

Do not eliminate essential self-references or other references but limit self-references only to papers that are relevant for those reviewing the submitted paper.

Cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows: ‘[Anonymous, 2010]’.

For blinding in the reference list: ‘[Anonymous 2010] Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.’

Remove references to funding sources.

Do not include acknowledgments

Remove any identifying information, including author names, from file names and ensure document properties are also anonymized.