These policies govern the peer review process for all journals published by RSYN RESEARCH. They are designed to ensure rigorous academic standards, ethical review practices, and timely publication of high-quality research.
Reviewers must possess: - A doctoral degree in a relevant field - A current academic or research position - Demonstrated expertise through published work in the subject area - No conflicts of interest with the manuscript under review
The editorial board selects reviewers based on: - Research expertise matching the manuscript's subject matter - Publication history in peer-reviewed journals - Previous review quality and reliability - Availability to complete reviews within the designated timeframe
All research published in RSYN RESEARCH journals must meet the following essential criteria:
Research manuscripts must demonstrate:
Scientific Validity: - Sound scientific methodology and experimental design - Appropriate statistical analysis and data interpretation - Clear presentation of methods and results - Logical conclusions supported by the data
Ethical Standards: - Compliance with all relevant ethical guidelines - Proper oversight and approvals for human/animal research - Transparent disclosure of funding sources and conflicts - Adherence to field-specific ethical standards
Technical Accuracy: - Precise and accurate reporting of methods - Verifiable results and data - Appropriate use of equipment and techniques - Validated analytical approaches
Reproducibility: - Detailed methodological descriptions - Complete reporting of protocols - Access to underlying data where applicable - Clear documentation of custom code or analysis
Scope and Contribution: - Falls within journal scope and aims - Represents a meaningful contribution through:
For journals not categorized as sound science: - Innovation and novelty in approach or findings - Potential impact on the field - Broader interest to the research community - Strategic alignment with journal focus
Upon receiving a review invitation, reviewers must: 1. Respond within 5 working days to accept or decline 2. Declare any potential conflicts of interest 3. Confirm their ability to complete the review within 21 days
Reviewers must provide independent, comprehensive evaluations that include:
Constructive Analysis: - Detailed assessment of scientific methodology - Evaluation of statistical approaches and data interpretation - Analysis of technical accuracy and reproducibility - Assessment of ethical compliance - Review of literature coverage and citations
Robust Feedback: - Specific, actionable recommendations for improvement - Clear identification of major and minor issues - Constructive suggestions for addressing weaknesses - Recognition of strengths and contributions
Review Sufficiency: - If existing review reports do not provide adequate feedback on all required aspects, additional reviewers will be invited - Each manuscript requires thorough evaluation of all core publication requirements - Reviews must address both technical and scientific aspects comprehensively
Provide: - Detailed, constructive feedback - Specific recommendations for improvement - Clear justification for the recommendation decision
Reviewers must: - Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content - Not share or discuss the manuscript with unauthorized individuals - Not use information from the manuscript for personal benefit - Delete all manuscript copies after review completion
Reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:
Accept: - Manuscript requires no or minimal revisions - Ready for publication after addressing minor formatting or typographical issues
Minor Revision: - Requires small changes that can be completed within 30 days - No additional experiments or major reanalysis needed
Major Revision: - Substantial changes required but manuscript shows potential - May require additional experiments or significant reanalysis - Changes can be completed within 90 days
Reject: - Significant flaws in methodology, analysis, or conclusions - Outside journal scope or below quality standards - Ethical concerns or plagiarism detected
Reviewers must decline review if they: - Have collaborated with any author within the past 3 years - Work at the same institution as any author - Have financial interests related to the research - Have personal relationships with any author
Reviewers must: - Provide objective, unbiased evaluations - Respect intellectual property rights - Report suspected misconduct to editors - Maintain professional courtesy in all communications
The editorial board monitors: - Review quality and thoroughness - Adherence to timelines - Professional conduct - Potential bias patterns
Reviews are evaluated based on: - Thoroughness of evaluation - Constructiveness of feedback - Timeliness of submission - Technical accuracy - Clarity of communication
RSYN RESEARCH acknowledges reviewer contributions through: - Annual recognition of outstanding reviewers - Certificates of appreciation - Priority consideration for editorial board positions - Acknowledgment in journal issues
These policies are: - Reviewed annually by the editorial board - Updated to reflect evolving publishing standards - Distributed to all active reviewers - Published on the journal website
RSYN RESEARCH provides: - Online training modules for new reviewers - Regular workshops on peer review best practices - Resources for staying current with review standards - Mentoring for early-career reviewers
For questions or concerns regarding these policies, contact: Editorial Office Email: editorial@rsyn.org To join the editorial board, send your application with your CV, photo, and links to ORCID, Scopus Profile, and Google Scholar profile.