Peer Review Policy

Peer review policy

At Richtmann Publishing, we are committed to providing the highest standards of academic integrity and guaranteeing the quality and credibility of the research papers published in our journals. Peer review plays a critical role in this process, and we have developed a complete peer review policy to guide our authors, reviewers, and editorial teams. This policy outlines the principles and procedures followed in the peer review process.

Purpose of Peer Review:

  1. The primary purpose of peer review is to evaluate the quality, authenticity, and originality of the research submitted to Richtmann Publishing.
  2. Peer review aims to provide constructive feedback to authors to improve their work and ensure that only high-quality research is published.

Selection of Reviewers:

  1. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and knowledge in the relevant field.
  2. Reviewers should be impartial, independent, and free from conflicts of interest that may influence their judgment.

Double-Blind Peer Review:

  1. Richtmann Publishing follows a double-blind peer review process, where the reviewers' identities and authors’ identities are kept confidential.
  2. Reviewers are not aware of the authors' identities, and vice versa.

 Peer Review Process:

  1. Upon submission, the editorial team screens the manuscript for adherence to the journal's scope, guidelines, and ethical considerations. The paper at this stage is checked with iThenticate sofware for plagiarism. (Click here for the Originality and Plagiarism Policy
  2. Manuscripts that meet the initial criteria are assigned to appropriate reviewers, if the initial criteria are not met the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further. Authors are required to check if the paper's composition and arrangement fulfill the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure that includes the required sections and stylizations. 
  3. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript's scientific accuracy, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, and ethical considerations.
  4. Reviewers also provide comments, suggestions, and/or recommendations to the authors to improve the quality of the research.
  5. Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within a specified timeframe, on average within 3-7 weeks.

Editorial Decision:

  1. Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editor makes an informed decision regarding the manuscript:  a) Accept without revisions. b) Accept with minor revisions.  c) Accept with major revisions.  d) Reject.
  2. The decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers' comments.

3. Authors are given an opportunity to revise and resubmit their work based on the reviewers' recommendations

Confidentiality and Anonymity:

  1. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and should not share or discuss their content with others without prior permission from the editor.
  2. Authors must also respect the confidentiality of the peer review process.

Appeals and Disputes:

  1. Richtmann Publishing has a strong mechanism to handle appeals or disputes regarding editorial decisions or the peer review process.
  2. Authors can submit an appeal, providing substantial grounds and evidence to support their case.
  3. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial team or an independent panel, and decisions are communicated to the authors in a timely manner.

Continuous Improvement:

  1. Richtmann Publishing regularly evaluates its peer review process to enhance its effectiveness and efficiency.
  2. Feedback from authors and reviewers is welcomed and taken into account for the process of improvement.

By observing this peer review policy, Richtmann Publishing aims to foster rigorous research, maintain high ethical standards, and ensure the quality and credibility of the published work.