Peer Review Policy

Research Edge and Publication (REP)

Research Edge and Publication (REP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, research integrity, and scholarly excellence through a rigorous and transparent peer review process. All manuscripts, dissertations, monographs, conference proceedings, edited books, and academic publications submitted to REP undergo peer review before publication.

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the originality, quality, validity, significance, and scholarly contribution of submitted work while ensuring fairness, objectivity, and ethical publishing practices.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process aims to:

  • Maintain academic and scientific quality.
  • Ensure originality and research integrity.
  • Improve the quality of submitted manuscripts.
  • Verify the validity and reliability of research findings.
  • Support evidence-based editorial decisions.
  • Promote ethical scholarly communication.

Peer Review Model

Double-Blind Peer Review

REP follows a Double-Blind Peer Review System.

Under this system:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
  • Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit.
  • Personal, institutional, or geographical bias is minimized.

The double-blind model promotes impartiality, transparency, and fairness throughout the evaluation process.

Editorial Screening

Before peer review, all submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment.

The Editorial Office evaluates:

  • Relevance to the scope of the publication
  • Compliance with submission guidelines
  • Academic quality and originality
  • Ethical compliance
  • Similarity screening results
  • Completeness of submission materials

Submissions that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to authors or declined before peer review.

Reviewer Selection Process

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise
  • Academic qualifications
  • Research experience
  • Publication record
  • Professional competence
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

REP maintains a database of qualified reviewers from universities, research institutions, healthcare organizations, and professional bodies.

Number of Reviewers

Each submission is normally evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers.

Additional reviewers may be assigned when:

  • Reviewer recommendations differ significantly.
  • The submission is multidisciplinary.
  • Specialized expertise is required.
  • Further clarification is necessary.

The Editor-in-Chief may seek additional opinions when appropriate.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess:

Originality

  • Novelty of the research
  • Contribution to existing knowledge

Scientific and Academic Quality

  • Research design
  • Methodology
  • Data analysis
  • Interpretation of results

Relevance

  • Importance to the discipline
  • Practical and academic significance

Structure and Presentation

  • Clarity of writing
  • Organization of content
  • Language quality
  • References and citations

Ethical Compliance

  • Research ethics
  • Participant protection
  • Conflict of interest disclosure
  • Data integrity

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept Without Revision

The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

Minor Revision

Small modifications are required before acceptance.

Major Revision

Substantial revisions are required before reconsideration.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet publication standards or falls outside the scope of the publication.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested:

  1. Authors receive reviewer comments.
  2. Authors submit a revised manuscript.
  3. Authors provide a response explaining revisions made.
  4. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.
  5. Final editorial decision is issued after assessment.

Failure to address reviewer comments adequately may result in rejection.

Peer Review Timeline

REP strives to ensure an efficient review process.

Review Stage Estimated Duration
Editorial Screening 3–7 Days
Reviewer Assignment 3–5 Days
Peer Review 2–4 Weeks
Author Revision 1–3 Weeks
Final Editorial Decision 3–7 Days
Publication Processing 1–2 Weeks

Actual timelines may vary depending on subject area and reviewer availability.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality.
  • Conduct reviews objectively and professionally.
  • Provide constructive feedback.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest.
  • Complete reviews within agreed timelines.
  • Report ethical concerns when identified.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Author Responsibilities

Authors are expected to:

  • Submit original work.
  • Respond to reviewer comments professionally.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest.
  • Provide accurate data and information.
  • Cooperate with editorial requests.
  • Follow ethical research standards.

Editorial Responsibilities

The Editorial Board is responsible for:

  • Selecting qualified reviewers.
  • Ensuring fair and unbiased review.
  • Protecting reviewer confidentiality.
  • Making decisions based on academic merit.
  • Maintaining publication quality standards.
  • Resolving disputes and ethical concerns.

Editorial decisions are independent of commercial, institutional, or personal interests.

Confidentiality

All submissions are treated as confidential documents.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must not disclose or distribute manuscript content during the review process except where necessary for editorial evaluation.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any conflict of interest related to:

  • Personal relationships
  • Institutional affiliations
  • Financial interests
  • Research collaborations
  • Competitive academic relationships

Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the review or decision-making process.

Ethical Oversight

The peer review process operates in accordance with REP’s:

  • Publication Ethics Policy
  • Plagiarism Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Research Misconduct Policy
  • Copyright and Licensing Policies

Any suspected ethical concerns may be investigated by the Publication Ethics Committee.

Peer Review Committee

The Peer Review Committee supervises and supports the review process to ensure consistency, quality, transparency, and academic integrity across all REP publications.

Chair

  • Dr. Ashish Kumar

Members

  • Dr. Brajesh Kumar Singh
  • Dr. Anshul Garhpale
  • Dr. Niketa Ahirwar
  • Dr. Rabab Hassan Elshaikh Mahmoud

Peer Review Statement

Research Edge and Publication (REP) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and ethically conducted scholarly work. All submissions are evaluated by independent experts based on academic merit, research integrity, and contribution to knowledge, ensuring fairness, transparency, and excellence in scholarly publishing.