About the Journal
ResearchBerg Review of Science and Technology (RRST) is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes research articles, reviews, and technical reports in the fields of science and technology. It covers current and relevant advancements in science and technology across several disciplines.
Peer-Review Policy for the ResearchBerg Review of Science and Technology
1. Purpose and Scope
The peer-review process is essential for maintaining the quality and integrity of published research in the "ResearchBerg Review of Science and Technology." This policy outlines the process, criteria, and ethical considerations to ensure that all submitted works undergo a rigorous and fair evaluation.
2. Initial Manuscript Assessment
All manuscripts submitted to the journal will first undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team. This step ensures that the submission aligns with the journal's scope, follows the prescribed formatting, and adheres to ethical guidelines.
3. Selection of Reviewers
For each manuscript that passes the initial assessment, the editorial team will select a minimum of two external reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are chosen based on their academic credentials, publication record, and the absence of any potential conflicts of interest with the authors.
4. Double-Blind Review Process
To eliminate potential biases, the journal adopts a double-blind review process. This means that both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the evaluation phase.
5. Review Criteria
Reviewers are provided with a standardized evaluation form that addresses the following key criteria:
- Originality and significance of the research.
- Clarity and coherence of the research question or hypothesis.
- Adequacy and appropriateness of the methodology.
- Accuracy and relevance of data analysis.
- Soundness of conclusions drawn.
- Relevance and adequacy of citations.
- Overall contribution to the field.
6. Reviewer Recommendations
After assessing the manuscript, reviewers can make one of the following recommendations:
- Accept without revisions.
- Accept with minor revisions.
- Revise and resubmit (major revisions required).
- Reject due to specific deficiencies or irrelevance.
7. Decision-making
The editorial team consolidates reviewer feedback and makes the final decision regarding the manuscript's status. The corresponding author will receive a decision letter, which includes reviewer comments and, if applicable, instructions for revisions.
8. Revision Process
If revisions are required, authors are expected to address each point raised by the reviewers. A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a detailed response letter that outlines the changes made and provides justification for any points not addressed.
9. Post-Acceptance and Publication
Manuscripts accepted for publication will undergo a final proofreading and formatting phase. Authors may be contacted to clarify any ambiguities or address minor issues.
10. Ethical Considerations
All participants in the peer-review process are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. This includes:
- Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.
- Reviewers should treat manuscripts confidentially and not use the knowledge gained for personal advantage.
- Authors should respect feedback, even if they disagree, and engage constructively.
11. Appeals Process
If authors disagree with the decision, they have the right to appeal by providing a detailed rationale. The editorial board will re-assess the manuscript and the reviews, potentially seeking an additional opinion if deemed necessary.
Editor-in-chief
Professor
Aligarh Muslim University, India
