Review Process Policy

 

  1. Policy Statement

RAMATEKNO is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publications through a rigorous and transparent peer-review process. All research manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated according to their originality, scientific merit, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and compliance with publication ethics.

The peer-review process is designed to assist editors in making informed publication decisions and to help authors improve the quality and clarity of their manuscripts.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team before being sent for peer review. This assessment evaluates:

  1. The relevance of the manuscript to the journal's aims and scope.
  2. Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript format.
  3. Originality and potential contribution to scientific knowledge or engineering practice.
  4. Completeness of the manuscript and clarity of its presentation.
  5. Compliance with publication ethics requirements, including plagiarism screening and declarations of conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external review.

  1. Peer-Review Model

RAMATEKNO applies a [double-blind / single-blind] peer-review process, depending on the journal's officially adopted review model.

Under a double-blind process, the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript file where required.

Under a single-blind process, reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, while reviewer identities remain confidential to the authors.

The journal assigns reviewers based on their expertise, research experience, and suitability for evaluating the submitted manuscript. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.

  1. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to qualified independent reviewers. The journal aims to obtain assessments from at least two reviewers for each research manuscript, subject to the editor's judgment and the journal's established procedures.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following aspects:

  1. Originality and significance of the research.
  2. Clarity of the research objectives and contribution.
  3. Appropriateness of the methodology, experimental design, or analytical approach.
  4. Validity and reliability of the results.
  5. Quality of the discussion and interpretation of findings.
  6. Relevance and adequacy of the cited literature.
  7. Clarity, organization, and technical quality of the manuscript.
  8. Compliance with relevant research and publication ethics standards.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and a recommendation to assist the editor in making a publication decision.

  1. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' comments, the manuscript's quality, and the journal's editorial policies, the editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.
  • Minor Revision: The authors must address limited issues before the manuscript can be accepted.
  • Major Revision: The authors must undertake substantial revisions and provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor and is not determined solely by reviewer recommendations.

  1. Revision and Resubmission

Authors must respond to reviewer comments systematically and submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editorial team.

A response letter should identify each reviewer comment and explain the corresponding revision or provide a reasoned response where the authors do not agree with a recommendation.

If the authors require additional time, they should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline. Revised manuscripts may undergo further editorial assessment or additional peer review before a final decision is made.

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.
  2. Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials.
  3. Identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited.
  4. Report potential plagiarism, data manipulation, ethical concerns, or other suspected misconduct to the editor.
  5. Disclose conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality may be compromised.
  6. Provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive feedback within the agreed review period.
  7. Refrain from using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not delegate a review to another person without the editor's prior approval.

  1. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

Submitted manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared or used for purposes unrelated to the review process without appropriate authorization.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, relevance, and compliance with the journal's policies. The publisher and other parties must not improperly influence editorial decisions for personal, financial, or institutional reasons.

  1. Review Duration

The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the time required for authors to complete revisions.

The editorial team will make reasonable efforts to process manuscripts promptly while maintaining the quality and integrity of the review process. Submission does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specific period.

  1. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a factual error, procedural irregularity, or a demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals must include a clear explanation and supporting evidence. The editorial team will assess the appeal impartially and may seek an independent assessment when appropriate. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial decisions, or the integrity of the review process will be handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

  1. Final Publication

Manuscripts that receive final acceptance proceed to copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, and publication according to the journal's publication schedule.

Before publication, authors may be asked to verify the final proofs and confirm the accuracy of the article's text, figures, tables, author information, and other publication details.

RAMATEKNO reserves the right to withhold publication if significant ethical, technical, or editorial concerns remain unresolved.