Peer Review Process

The peer review process for RMMJ is as follows:

  1. Manuscripts are received and assessed by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), with input from Editorial Board (EB) (where necessary) for appropriateness in journal. If not appropriate, the paper is rejected without review. There are a variety of reasons for rejection at this stage ranging from lack of sufficient originality, serious flaws of concept or methodology, poor writing/presentation/ language, to being outside the aims and scope of the journal. Such responses are generally within 1-2 weeks of receipt of the paper. Feedback to the author is provided by the EiC for manuscripts rejected without review and, where possible, suggestions are made on other suitable submission channels.

  2. All manuscripts are checked in iThenticate for originality. Papers with a high iThenticate score are rejected (>60%); papers with a moderate score (20-59%) are carefully analyzed, and where necessary, the paper is rejected. Papers that have a low score (0-19%), or that have passed a deeper review of the score, are then passed on for review. This is done within 1 week of receipt of the paper.

    If the paper is rejected, an explanation is provided to the author and they are provided with a copy of the iThenticate report for their paper.

  3. The manuscript is sent to reviewers. Authors are required to submit the names, affiliations, and contact information of at least three potential reviewers. In addition, the EiC matches reviewers to the paper according to their expertise, and the journal’s reviewer database is updated on an ongoing basis.
     
    • In general, the journal usually submits papers for review to at least one of the recommended reviewers from the author and one or two from our own database.

    • Papers are sent for review to a suggested reviewer unless the reviewer is considered to have potential bias or be unqualified by the EiC or EB.

    • The EiC and EB recommend other possible reviewers, where necessary.

    • An invitation is initially sent to at least three reviewers and often more. They are provided with at least 10 days to respond and given reminders that this invitation is awaiting a response.

    • In the event of non-response, other reviewers are invited. As many six or more reviewers may be invited before receiving a positive response.

    • If only one reviewer responds, the EiC and/or EB perform an additional review to verify the reviewer’s comments and make a final decision, although every effort is made to try to get an opinion from a reviewer with expertise in the paper’s topic, and outside of the immediate network of the EiC and EB.

    • In those cases where multiple reviewers have refused to review the paper, the EiC or EB will review the paper. Sometimes, if no expert in a particular field is on the EB, the paper must be rejected since no adequate scholarly opinion can be offered, and the author is advised that this is the reason for the rejection.
  1. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript for: Scientific Merit, Originality, Importance, Readership Interest, and overall quality. They are also asked to provide an overall reviewer manuscript rating (percentage) and recommendation for acceptance or rejection. In addition, they are provided with the ability to provide confidential comments to the Editor, as well as specific comments to the author.

  2. Reviewers’ and Editors’ comments, and/or a summary of comments, are sent to the authors. In some cases, these comments include marked-up versions of the author’s paper with requested changes. In the latter case, the paper may be edited before returning to the author, to ensure that the reviewer’s identity remains confidential.

    Note: This entire process can take from one to three months to be completed, depending on how long it takes to find a qualified reviewer for the paper under consideration.

  3. The author is asked to respond to all of the issues raised.

  4. Reviewers are given the opportunity to review revised manuscripts, particularly in cases where extensive review is requested.

  5. Once the authors have responded adequately to the reviewers’ comments, the paper is accepted for publication. It should be noted that we carefully evaluate both the reviewer’s comments and the author’s response.

NOTE: There have been instances where papers were of high interest to the EiC and EB, but the failure of the author to adequately revise their paper led to the submission’s ultimate rejection. In such cases, the author is advised of this.