Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

The "Research Consortium Archive" (RCA) is committed to publishing high-quality, original research and scholarship that advances the field. We believe that peer review is an essential component of this process, ensuring that published work meets rigorous standards of accuracy, originality, and methodological soundness. This policy outlines the principles and procedures governing the peer review process for RCA submissions.

2. Scope of Peer Review

All research articles, reviews, and other scholarly contributions submitted to RCA are subject to double-blind peer review. This means that the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the process. Exceptions may be made for invited reviews, where the author and reviewer may be aware of each other's identities.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the relevant field and their publication record. They are also expected to be unbiased and free of any conflict of interest related to the submitted work. The Editorial Board maintains a database of potential reviewers and actively seeks new experts to ensure a diverse and qualified pool.

4. Review Process

  • Initial Screening: Submissions are first screened by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor to ensure they meet basic submission criteria and fall within the scope of RCA.

  • Peer Review: Eligible submissions are then assigned to two or more independent reviewers. Reviewers are provided with clear guidelines and evaluation criteria, including:

    • Originality: Does the work present new and significant findings that contribute to the field?
    • Methodology: Are the research methods sound and appropriate for the research question?
    • Results: Are the results presented clearly and accurately? Do they support the conclusions drawn?
    • Significance: What are the implications of the findings for the field?
    • Presentation: Is the work well-written and organized?

  • Decision Making: Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision on the manuscript. Possible outcomes include:

    • Accept as is: The manuscript is published without revisions.
    • Minor revisions: The manuscript needs minor revisions before publication.
    • Major revisions: The manuscript needs substantial revisions before further consideration.
    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in RCA.

  • Author Communication: Throughout the process, authors are kept informed of the status of their submission and provided with feedback from reviewers.

5. Confidentiality

The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the peer review process. Reviewers are expected to treat all submitted materials with confidentiality and refrain from sharing them with anyone outside the review process.

6. Ethics

All parties involved in the peer review process are expected to uphold ethical standards of research conduct, including objectivity, fairness, and integrity. This includes avoiding plagiarism, conflicts of interest, and any form of discrimination.