Peer Review

Peer Review

Introduction

A robust peer review system is essential to ensure the quality of a research article. RoyalDataset Journals implements a stringent peer review process for all submitted manuscripts before publication.

Double Blind Peer Review

The review process plays a crucial role in the article publication process, allowing authors to enhance their manuscripts and aiding editors in making decisions. RoyalDataset Journals employs a double-blind peer review system.

In a double-blind peer review system, the author(s)' identity is concealed from selected reviewers, and all details that could reveal the author(s) are removed from the manuscript. Similarly, the reviewers' identities remain hidden from the author(s) when providing comments. RoyalDataset Journals views the double-blind peer review system as more effective in limiting potential bias from reviewers or authors.

The Peer Review Process

RoyalDataset Journals follows a three-stage review process: editorial office, external review, and editors' decision.

The editorial office initiates the first stage, ensuring that a submitted manuscript meets the journal's minimum requirements before sending it to external reviewers. During this stage, the manuscript undergoes checks for possible plagiarism using tools such as PlagiarismX Checker, CopySpider, and Grammarly. If the manuscript exhibits a high level of similarity with other works, it is rejected, and authors receive a similarity report along with the decision. Additionally, the manuscript's content is assessed for alignment with the journal's scope, recent references, and language correctness. Manuscripts failing at this stage are returned to authors for modification and resubmission.

The second stage employs a double-blind review system, where a minimum of two external reviewers, selected based on expertise, evaluate the manuscript's originality, contribution, technical quality, clarity, and depth of research. Reviewers provide comments and score the manuscript, suggesting whether it requires minor corrections, moderate revision, major revision, or is not suitable for further processing. In cases of conflicting opinions between reviewers, a third reviewer may be involved. The entire process, including reviewer feedback, is sent to authors with reviewers' identities concealed.

Authors make corrections based on reviewers' comments, and the manuscript undergoes the third stage. An editor makes a decision to accept as is, accept with minor corrections, require major corrections, send for review again, or reject. Accepted manuscripts proceed to publication, while those requiring corrections are sent back to authors. After corrections, the editor reviews the manuscript again, and in some cases, a second round of corrections may be needed. Revised manuscripts may be sent to specific reviewers before final acceptance for publication.