Guidelines

IJRDO Publications practices a policy of the double-blind peer review, where the authors and the reviewers are not revealed during the review process. The method assists in being objective and fair when evaluating all the submitted manuscripts. It is essential that reviewers are involved in ensuring the quality and integrity of published research and that they observe the following guidelines.

Reviewer Responsibility.

A reviewer should critically analyze the manuscript in his or her area of specialization and give constructive, honest, and respectful feedback. The review must be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses in the manuscript, recommend improvements, and evaluate the originality, relevance, and scientific contribution of the work. Time to wait Before Accepting the Review.

Before Accepting the Review

Reviewers ought to put a thoughtful look at the following before agreeing to review a manuscript:

Knowledge: Be sure that the subject of your writing is within your area of expertise. Otherwise, the request for review should be rejected.

Availability: The reviews must preferably be done within one week. In case of default with regard to the deadline, alert the editor or propose another reviewer.

Conflict of Interest: A possible conflict (academic, professional, or personal) should be made known to the editor prior to the continuance of the review.

Reviewing the Manuscript

When going through the review, one should look at the quality, structure, and scientific quality standards of the manuscript in general:

Content Quality & Originality

The paper must contain novel, significant, and relevant research. The reviewers are required to evaluate the contribution that the study makes to the existing knowledge and the importance of the research question in the field. It can be compared with available literature (e.g., indexed databases like Scopus or similar), which can be helpful.

Structure & Presentation

The paper must be written in accordance with the format of the journal. Minor cases of formatting can be fixed later on, but major structural problems need to be brought to the attention of the editor.

Clarity and Organization

Title and Abstract: Should be representative of the content and meaning of the study.

Introduction: Should state the research problem and be relevant.

Methodology: It should be understandable, repeatable, and suitable for the research.

Results: Should be given logically without interpretation.

Discussion & Conclusion: The results should support the discussion and be in line with the objectives of the research.

Tables, Figures & Data

Numbers and diagrams must be applicable, well-marked, and reflect the data. They need to improve their knowledge of the manuscript.

Language & Readability

Reviewers are supposed to note the language quality, in case it influences comprehension. Language correction should not be done in detail, but must be marked when needed.

Scope

Make sure that the paper is consistent with the goals and objectives of the journal.

Instructions on Reviewer Comments.

The reviews must be clear, well-organized, and constructive, and they are expected to assist the author in improving his work. The remarks ought to be courteous, precise, and elaborate. A decent review will usually consist of:

  • Abstract of the paper and its contribution.
  • Key strengths of the paper.
  • Key weaknesses and areas needing improvement
  • Revision (major and minor) suggestions.
  • Originality, methodological, and relevance comments.
  • Clarity, structure, and readability feedback.

The reviewers must make a distinction between comments that should be sent to editors and those that should be sent to authors.

Evaluation Criteria

The reviewers are encouraged to take into consideration:

  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Scope relevance to the journal.
  • Adequacy of literature review
  • Soundness of methodology
  • Clearness of findings and conclusions.
  • Practical or theoretical implications.

Recommendation

Reviewers need to give a recommendation to the editor after the review. The editor decides the final choice based on the reviewer.

Possible recommendations include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers will be expected to uphold high ethical standards in the process:

Confidentiality: The manuscripts should be treated as confidential documents.

Objectivity: Reviews must be objective and backed by coherent arguments.

Citation of Sources: Recognize missing or redundant work.

Conflict of Interest: Do not analyze manuscripts with conflicts.

Integrity: Do not take advantage of unpublished material.

Any misbehavior, such as tampering with the review process or not reporting conflicts, can result in termination of reviewer duties.

Manuscript Preparation

File Format:

The manuscripts must be in Microsoft Word (.docx) or LaTeX because they are compatible with the editorial system.

Font & Spacing:

All the documents will be typed with a 12-point Times New Roman font and 1.5 line spacing to ensure readability and consistency in presentation.

Abstract & Keywords:

Add an abstract with 150250 words outlining the study and 4-6 keywords that are relevant to it to make it easier to find and index.

Manuscript Structure:

Its structure should be typical of an academic paper, with Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion, and it must be logically structured and clear.

Word Limit:

The maximum length of the recommended wording is not more than 8,000 words, and it can be different, depending on the specific journal.

Formatting Requirements

Title Page Details:

The title page should contain the complete title of the manuscript, the names of the authors, institutional affiliations, the corresponding author details, and ORCID identifiers (when possible).

Language:

The papers are to be composed in understandable and grammatically correct American English.

Page Numbering:

Each page should be numbered in sequence so that it will be in order when reviewing it.

Units of Measurement:

All measurements should be in standard International System of Units (SI) so that it remains consistent and scientifically accurate.

Tables & Figures:

The tables and figures must be well labelled and put in the text where they are first mentioned so that they are easily read and understood.

Final Note

The peer review process is a cooperative activity among the authors, reviewers, and editors. Reviewers should give timely, professional, and constructive reviews to facilitate the publication of quality research.