Peer Review Committee

Research Edge and Publication (REP)

Research Edge and Publication (REP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process. All submitted manuscripts, dissertations, monographs, edited books, conference proceedings, and academic publications undergo a structured evaluation process before acceptance for publication.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

REP follows a Double-Blind Peer Review System, ensuring that:

Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
Reviews are conducted objectively and independently.
Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit, originality, relevance, and scientific quality.

This process helps eliminate bias and promotes fairness, integrity, and academic excellence.

Minimum Two Independent Reviewers

Every manuscript submitted to REP is evaluated by a minimum of two independent subject experts.

Reviewers are selected based on:

Academic qualifications
Research expertise
Publication record
Subject specialization
Absence of conflicts of interest

Where necessary, additional reviewers may be appointed for multidisciplinary or highly specialized submissions.

Peer Review Timeline

REP aims to ensure a timely and efficient review process.

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

The actual timeline may vary depending on the complexity and discipline of the submission.

Reviewer Ethics

All reviewers are required to adhere to the following ethical principles:

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all submitted materials as confidential documents and must not share, distribute, or disclose any information related to the manuscript.

Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted fairly, objectively, and without personal criticism of the author.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must immediately disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline the review if impartiality cannot be maintained.

Academic Integrity

Reviewers should identify potential issues related to plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, data manipulation, or citation misconduct.

Professional Conduct

Reviews should be constructive, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the quality of scholarly work.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

REP appoints reviewers according to the following criteria:

Possession of a Master's degree, PhD, or equivalent professional qualification in the relevant discipline.
Demonstrated expertise through research publications, academic experience, or professional contributions.
Experience in scholarly reviewing, research supervision, or editorial activities.
No direct academic, institutional, financial, or personal conflict of interest with the authors.
Commitment to maintaining confidentiality and ethical review standards.

Preference is given to reviewers with recognized academic profiles such as Google Scholar, ORCID, Scopus Author ID, Web of Science Researcher Profile, or equivalent scholarly credentials.

Editorial Oversight

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board oversee the peer review process to ensure:

Fairness and transparency
Ethical compliance
Quality assurance
Consistency in editorial decisions
Adherence to international scholarly publishing standards

Final publication decisions are made only after completion of the peer review process and editorial evaluation.