Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

"Journal of Regional Connectivity and Development" (JRC&D) is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly integrity and publishing high-quality research. The journal utilizes a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and relevance of published articles. This policy outlines the key principles and procedures governing the peer review process for JRC&D.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the specific research area of the submitted manuscript. They are selected from a diverse pool of scholars actively engaged in research related to regional connectivity and development. The editorial team strives to select reviewers who have no conflicts of interest with the authors or their research.

3. Process

• Double-blind review: Both the reviewer and author identities are concealed throughout the review process. This ensures fair and unbiased evaluation based solely on the merit of the submitted manuscript.
• Initial review: The editor conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript for scope, adherence to formatting guidelines, and overall quality. Manuscripts meeting these criteria are then sent to two independent reviewers.
• Reviewer evaluation: Each reviewer provides a written evaluation of the manuscript, addressing its strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement. The review format includes sections on:
  • Originality and contribution: Does the research offer new insights and knowledge to the field?
  • Methodology: Is the research design sound and appropriate for the chosen topic?
  • Analysis and results: Are the data analysis methods rigorous and well-explained? Are the results clearly presented and supported by evidence?
  • Discussion and conclusions: Are the implications of the findings adequately discussed? Are the conclusions warranted by the research?
  • Writing and clarity: Is the manuscript well-written, organized, and free of errors?
• Editorial decision: The editor carefully considers the reviewer evaluations and makes a final decision on the manuscript:
  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or minor revisions.
  • Minor revisions: The manuscript is accepted with the requirement for revisions based on reviewer suggestions.
  • Major revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and is sent back to the author for further work.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication.

4. Communication and Confidentiality

• Throughout the review process, all communication between the editor, reviewers, and authors is conducted confidentially.
• Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and respectful feedback. They should avoid personal attacks or discriminatory language.
• Authors are provided with the reviewers' comments anonymously, allowing them to address the feedback and improve their manuscript.
• Authors are expected to respond to reviewers' comments in a professional and timely manner.

5. Ethical Considerations

JRC&D adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for ethical scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, avoid plagiarism, and declare any potential conflicts of interest. Similarly, authors are responsible for submitting original work, ensuring data integrity, and disclosing any funding sources or potential conflicts of interest.

6. Review Timescale

JRC&D strives to provide authors with a timely review decision within approximately 4-6 weeks after submission. However, this timeframe may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers.