Guidelines for Reviewers

Download the evaluation form here.

Manuscripts submitted to RCTA for publication are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. A double-blind peer review model is adopted to preserve the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Thoughtfully selected comments from reviewers like yourself are a valuable guide for editors in making decisions about manuscript acceptance.

Reviewer Selection:

When selecting reviewers, we ensure they meet the following criteria:

  • Appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Appropriate academic experience to evaluate the manuscript, typically a doctoral degree is expected.
  • Experience in the specific subject area.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

Reviewers agreeing to review a manuscript have the responsibility to:

  • Declare conflicts of interest before commencing the review.
  • Decline an invitation promptly if unavailable, and if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Complete the review and submit the report within the expected timeframe.
  • Evaluate the manuscript impartially and provide a detailed report with specific comments.
  • Report any suspicious misconduct to the editors for further investigation.
  • Maintain confidentiality of assigned manuscripts.

To ensure efficient and effective peer review and smooth editorial service, we appreciate reviewers taking a few minutes to read the following guidelines.

We strictly adhere to criteria specified by COPE, for ethical scholarly publishing with maximum transparency. Therefore, we expect reviewers accepting review requests to follow ethical requirements. We recommend reviewers consult COPE Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers when reviewing manuscripts submitted to RCTA.

Timely communication between the journal and reviewers is crucial for facilitating consistent, fair, and timely manuscript review. We expect reviewer candidates to:

  • Accept or decline an invitation to peer review based on the title and abstract promptly.
  • Return a review within the proposed timeframe. If circumstances change and you cannot meet your original agreement or need an extension to submit a review, please notify the journal immediately.
  • If unable to review, suggest some relevant alternative reviewers if possible.

Promptness of Response

Timely communication between the journal and reviewers is crucial for facilitating consistent, fair, and timely manuscript review. We expect reviewer candidates to:

  • Accept or decline an invitation to peer review based on the title and abstract promptly.
  • Return a review within the proposed timeframe. If circumstances change and you cannot meet your original agreement or need an extension to submit a review, please notify the journal immediately.
  • If unable to review, suggest some relevant alternative reviewers if possible.

Possible Conflicts of Interest

It's crucial that reviewers provide unbiased comments. Before reviewing, reviewers must declare all conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. Conflicts of interest can be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature. If unsure of any conflicting interest that might hinder your ability to review, notify the journal and seek advice.

Confidentiality

Respecting the confidentiality of the peer review process and article information should not be used or distributed in part or in full until the article is published. Reviewers should also take care not to reveal their identity to the authors.

Reviewers should prepare their own reports and are not allowed to impersonate others during the review process. If you wish to invite others to participate in the peer review process, you must request permission in advance from the journal editorial office. The names of individuals who have contributed to the review should be included in the review report signature.

Suspected Ethical Violations

Reviewers should report any suspected misconduct to the editorial office for further investigation. For example, you may notice a significant amount of similarity between the manuscript you are reviewing and a manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time or a published manuscript. For any ethical concerns, please contact the editorial office directly via email.

 

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers

To ensure thorough and fair review of manuscripts, reviewers are required to complete an evaluation form covering the following essential aspects:

  1. Authenticity and Originality: The results presented in the manuscript must be the authors' original contribution, free from plagiarism or fabrication. Presentation of new ideas, methods, or findings is valued.

  2. Relevance and Impact: The content of the work should be interesting and relevant to the journal's audience, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the study area.

  3. Scientific Rigor: The design and execution of the study must meet recognized technical standards. The conclusion should be supported by solid evidence, and the methodology should be transparent and reproducible.

  4. Research Ethics: The study is expected to have been conducted ethically and respectfully, especially in research involving humans, animals, or other subjects of study.

  5. Language Quality: The manuscript should be written clearly and precisely in English, free from spelling or grammatical errors, to ensure effective communication.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to enhance the quality and relevance of the reviewed manuscripts. Editors make decisions based on careful consideration of all reviewer comments, ensuring a fair and transparent editorial process.