Every research paper and review article in IJRMEET is peer reviewed before publication. Review is double blind: reviewers do not know who the authors are, and authors do not know who the reviewers are.
Stages
- Initial check by the editorScope, format, completeness and a similarity check. Papers that do not meet the basic requirements are returned without review.
- Two reviewersThe editor invites two independent experts in the subject, with no conflict of interest with the authors.
- ReportsEach reviewer assesses originality, method, results, literature, ethics and writing, and recommends accept, minor revision, major revision or reject.
- Editor’s decisionThe editor weighs both reports. If they disagree strongly, a third reviewer may be invited.
- RevisionAuthors respond to each comment. Revised papers return to the same reviewers where possible.
- Final decisionThe editor’s final decision is sent to the corresponding author with the reviewers’ comments.
Decisions
| Decision | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accept | Ready to publish with no further changes, or only small edits |
| Minor revision | Small changes needed; usually checked by the editor |
| Major revision | Substantial changes needed; checked again by the reviewers |
| Reject | Not suitable for IJRMEET; the reasons are given |
Timelines
The editor’s initial check is made as soon as a paper arrives, and reviewers are asked to report promptly. Any submission is published within 4 to 5 days of acceptance, whatever the date it is submitted. There is no monthly deadline. Papers that need no revision are published within 4 to 5 days of acceptance; when revisions are requested, most of the time before acceptance is the time authors take to return the revised paper.
Fairness
- Reviewers and editors must declare any conflict of interest and step aside if one exists.
- Papers by editors or board members are handled by another editor, and the author has no access to the review.
- Payment of fees has no influence on any decision.
- Reviewers’ identities are never disclosed to authors.
Authors who believe a decision was wrong can appeal.
Editors’ own papers
A paper submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, a board member or anyone linked to the publisher is declared as such, and is always handled and decided by another editor. The author has no access to the review, and the decision is recorded in the review record.
Review records
Every paper has a review record: paper ID, the reviewers (kept confidential), their reports, the decision and the dates of submission, review and decision. Records are kept on file and can be shown to indexing services on request.
How reviewers are chosen
- Reviewers hold a doctorate or equivalent research experience in the paper’s subject and have published in the field.
- The editor chooses reviewers from the reviewer panel or invites outside experts.
- A reviewer must declare any conflict of interest (same institution, recent co-author, personal or financial link) and decline the paper if one exists.
- Reviewers follow the reviewer guidelines and keep the paper confidential.
How editors are selected
The full policy is on the Editor selection and evaluation page.
- Editors and editorial board members are researchers with a doctorate or equivalent experience, a record of published research, and expertise in at least one of the journal’s subjects.
- Candidates apply or are nominated; the Editor-in-Chief reviews their record and appoints them with the publisher’s agreement.
- Appointments are for three years and may be renewed. Editors who do not meet their duties or the ethics policy are removed.
- Editors declare conflicts of interest and never handle their own papers or papers from their own institution.
How these policies are reviewed
The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board review this policy and the other journal policies once a year against the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Changes are published on this page with the date of the update.