Guidelines for Editors and Reviewers
Guidelines for Editors
In developing the principles of publication ethics, RS Global publisher was guided by the recommendations of the International Committee on Publishing Ethics (https://publicationethics.org/), as well as international standards for editors, developed and adopted at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010.
General information about Guidelines for Editors:
- Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish;
- Editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process;
- Editors should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting;
- Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct;
- Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct;
- Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals;
- Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them;
- Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest.
More information here.
Guidelines for Reviewers
About the peer review process, you can find information on the Peer Review page.
Each reviewer should provide personal and professional information that represents his expertise, including accurate contact information.
We expect from a potential reviewer the following:
RS Global publisher strongly recommends to our reviewers follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Conflicts of interest.
Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they have a financial interest in the subject of the work or feel unable to be objective and also in case of any competing interests such as personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious.
- Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript without first obtaining permission from the Editor;
- The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included in the Comments to Editors section of the Review Report;
- Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer-review process;
- Any contact with authors, in case, if the reviewer wants to gain some clarifications from them, must be done through the Editor. All questions have to be included in the Comments to Editors section of the Review Report.
- It is necessary to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time-frame, even if the reviewer cannot undertake the review.
- If the reviewer feels qualified to judge a particular manuscript, he should agree to review only if he is able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed on time-frame.
- The reviewer must always inform the Editor promptly if his circumstances change and he cannot fulfill your original agreement or if he requires an extension.
- If the potential reviewer cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).