Peer review model
RDPub journals use single-blind peer review: reviewers know the identity of the authors, while authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Every research manuscript is first screened by the editorial office for scope, originality (including similarity checking) and compliance with the author guidelines. Manuscripts that pass screening are assessed by the handling editor and by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise.
Decisions
Based on the reviewer reports, the handling editor recommends acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection, and the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor takes the final decision. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers. The journals aim to complete the process from submission to acceptance within about 75 days, although the time needed depends on the availability of reviewers and on the time authors take to revise.
Reviewer responsibilities
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential, declare any conflict of interest and decline the review if the conflict could affect their objectivity, provide objective and constructive reports, and must not use manuscripts for personal advantage. Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts or review material to public generative AI tools.
Conflicts of interest and editors as authors
Editors and reviewers must decline to handle manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest. Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members or reviewers are handled by an independent editor, and the author editor has no access to the review process or decision.
Appeals
Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal following the procedure described in the Complaints and Appeals policy.