Peer Review Process

RIPCO applies a double-blind review process. All articles submitted to the journal are evaluated via the the Manuscript Management platform. The evaluation process goes through several steps before a final decision is made.

Initial Screening

On reception of a research paper, the Editorial Staff will screen the article for journal scope and originality. If its contents are out of the scope of the journal or article finds plagiarized, the article will be returned to the author. If the article is original and its contents fall into the scope of the Journal, then it will be assigned for External Peer Review.

Specifically, when a manuscript is submitted for the first time, an automatic notification alerts the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief of a manuscript submission. They conduct a preliminary review to make sure that the manuscript 1) is consistent with the journal's editorial policy, 2) complies with editorial instructions, 3) does not present plagiarism problems, 4) is not under review in another journal, 5) does not compromise the blind review process, and 6) has at least a minimal probability of being favorably evaluated by the reviewers. Articles that do not meet these criteria may be permanently rejected prior to review (Desk Reject), or temporarily suspended (Suspend) and returned to the authors to remedy the deficiencies.

For each manuscript that passes the initial screening stage, the Editor-in-Chief assigns one of the Associate Editors close to the subject of the manuscript to manage the review process. In turn, the Associate Editor conducts a substantive analysis of the manuscript and may either recommend the Editor-in-Chief to definitively reject the manuscript prior to evaluation (Desk Reject), or decide to submit the manuscript to the double-blind review process for evaluation. In the latter case, the reviewers have four weeks to submit their review report and recommendation.

External Peer Review

Maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record depends on peer reviewers. Because of this, reviewers selected for this process ought to be independent of the authors of the application and possess an institutional email account as proof of their affiliation with a different institution. To guarantee objectivity and conscientiousness, the journal may choose reviewers without consulting the authors.

In order to promote a consistent, equitable, and prompt review process, the editorial team pledges to maintain open lines of communication with reviewers. Reviewers must adhere to the same high standards expected in scholarly publishing and perform their assessments in an ethical and responsible manner. The reviews will play a major role in the decision-making process on whether or not to publish the manuscript.

If any changes are needed after review, the authors will be urged to make adjustments based on the reviewers' comments. The original reviewers will reevaluate the amended version to make sure all issues are resolved. The final preparation of the manuscript, including formatting for the journal and forwarding galley proofs to the corresponding author for small edits, will follow a clear recommendation for publishing. The publication of the manuscript will occur upon final approval.

This policy aims to ensure the integrity and quality of the scholarly record, in keeping with wider community expectations and norms, and highlights the journal's commitment to ethical peer review.

Specifically, RIPCO asks reviewers to help develop the manuscript by providing constructive feedback. When at least two good quality and convergent review reports are available, the Associate Editor writes an evaluation report based on the reviewers' reports and their own reading, and makes a decision recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief then makes a final decision which may take one of the following forms: acceptance for publication, request for minor changes, request for major changes, reject but resubmit after complete reworking of the content, or reject. The Editor-in-Chief endeavors to provide constructive feedback to the authors. His decision, together with the above-mentioned reports, is then automatically notified by the platform to the authors, the reviewers and the associate editor. In this way, reviewers can see the comments of the other reviewers, the Associate Editors and the Editor-in-Chief. Authors receive a first decision two to three months after submitting their manuscript, on average. Exceptions may exist, depending on the subject of the article and the scarcity of experts that can be called upon, and depending on the time taken by the reviewers despite the platform's reminder system and the follow-up of the associate editors.

Authors then have an indicative period of three months to submit a revised version of their manuscript and a letter containing the detailed responses to the reviewers. The editorial team strives to keep the number of rounds for major revisions to two in succession so as not to unduly prolong the time required to make a final decision. Submissions that may require additional revisions are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

All resubmitted manuscripts go through the same review process, and previously solicited reviewers give an evaluation based on consideration of the changes suggested in the first round of review.

 

Evaluation of manuscripts for special issues.

The team of Guest Editor(s) of a special issue steers the review process, and selects the reviewers to invite to examine the manuscripts submitted to the call. One of the Associate Editors works in conjunction with the special issue editors and verifies the quality of the reviews on the platform. The rest of the review process for manuscripts for special issues is identical to the process for regular issues and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the recommendations of the reviewers and the team of Guest Editors. If one of the Guest Editors is an author or co-author of a manuscript for the Special Issue, the Editor-in-Chief will appoint an Associate Editor to manage the review process for that manuscript.

 

Procedure for the evaluation of "Points of View" articles

The procedure for evaluating "Points of View" articles begins with the authors' initial submission, followed by a preliminary review conducted by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal's standards and thematic focus. Next, the editorial team assesses the proposal in terms of relevance, originality, and quality, with particular attention to clarity of presentation. If the proposal aligns with the editorial guidelines, it undergoes a more comprehensive evaluation, potentially involving external experts. Following consideration of the evaluations, a final decision is made regarding the acceptance or rejection of the proposal. In case of acceptance, authors are invited to write the complete article in accordance with the journal's standards. Finally, the article undergoes a process of review and editing before publication in the "Points of View" section of the journal, ensuring both quality and editorial relevance.