Peer Review Policy

At Reinforced Plastics Journal, we are committed to ensuring the quality, accuracy, and scientific integrity of the research we publish. To achieve this, we implement a rigorous peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. This policy outlines the principles, procedures, and expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors to maintain a fair, transparent, and high-quality review process.

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

All submissions to Reinforced Plastics Journal undergo a double-blind peer review process. This means that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review. The process aims to evaluate the quality, originality, and significance of the research, ensuring that only manuscripts meeting high academic standards are published.

2. Types of Peer Review

We utilize two key types of peer review, depending on the manuscript type:

2.1 Double-Blind Peer Review

In the double-blind peer review process:

The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers.
The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

This process helps to minimize bias and ensure that the focus remains on the quality and substance of the manuscript.

2.2 Open Peer Review (Optional)

In some cases, particularly for special issues or upon the request of the authors or reviewers, the peer review process may be conducted openly, where both the authors and reviewers know each other's identities. This approach is intended to promote transparency and constructive dialogue between the authors and reviewers.

3. Reviewer Selection Criteria

Our editorial team carefully selects reviewers based on their expertise, impartiality, and previous research experience. Reviewers are typically selected from the following categories:

Subject Matter Expertise: Reviewers should have significant experience and knowledge in the field of reinforced plastics, composites, or related disciplines.
Relevant Research Experience: Reviewers should have a proven track record of research and publication in the area of the submitted manuscript.
Impartiality: Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest that would compromise their ability to evaluate the manuscript objectively.

We aim to invite reviewers who are both qualified and unbiased, with an understanding of the ethical considerations involved in reviewing academic research.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the journal. As a reviewer, you are expected to:

Provide Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide thoughtful, detailed, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Focus should be on the quality of the research, clarity of presentation, and appropriateness of methodology.
Assess Originality: Reviewers should evaluate the originality of the manuscript, checking for potential plagiarism or duplicate publication.
Ensure Scientific Validity: Reviewers should assess the validity of the data, the robustness of the methodology, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results.
Evaluate Relevance: The relevance of the research to the field of reinforced plastics, composites, and related industries should be clearly addressed.
Respect Confidentiality: All manuscripts under review should be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not share or discuss the content with others without prior permission from the editorial team.
Identify Conflicts of Interest: If reviewers have any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript, they should disclose them immediately to the editorial office and, if necessary, recuse themselves from the review process.

5. Author Responsibilities

Authors submitting to Reinforced Plastics Journal should ensure that they comply with the following guidelines:

Accuracy and Transparency: Authors should present their research data and methodology accurately. Any revisions or updates to the manuscript should be promptly submitted.
Ethical Conduct: Authors should follow ethical standards in their research, including obtaining necessary ethical approvals and consent for human or animal studies.
Responding to Reviewer Comments: Authors should consider all reviewer comments carefully and revise their manuscript accordingly. A detailed response to each reviewer comment should be included with the revised manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to the manuscript, including financial or personal relationships that could affect the research or interpretation of results.

6. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for overseeing the entire peer review process. Their duties include:

Ensuring Fairness: Editors must ensure that all manuscripts are reviewed in a fair, unbiased, and transparent manner. They must evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Selection of Reviewers: Editors select appropriate, qualified reviewers based on their expertise and impartiality.
Decision Making: After the peer review process, editors make the final decision on whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Editors must ensure that decisions are based solely on the quality of the manuscript, not on the authors' identities, affiliations, or any other factors.
Confidentiality: Editors must respect the confidentiality of all manuscripts and correspondence during the peer review process.
Handling Conflicts of Interest: Editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that may arise during the review process. If necessary, they will recuse themselves from the decision-making process.

7. Review Process Timeline

The typical timeline for the peer review process is as follows:

Initial Submission: Manuscripts are submitted to the editorial office and screened for basic formatting, plagiarism, and relevance to the journal.
Peer Review: Manuscripts are assigned to 2-3 independent reviewers. The review process typically takes 3-4 weeks, but this can vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and availability of reviewers.
Decision: After receiving the reviewer feedback, the editor makes a decision to accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript.
Revision and Resubmission: Authors are given a set time (usually 2-4 weeks) to revise their manuscript and address reviewers' comments. If necessary, further rounds of review will take place.
Final Decision and Publication: Once the manuscript is revised and finalized, it is accepted for publication in an upcoming issue of the journal.

8. Types of Peer Review Decisions

After the review process, editors make one of the following decisions based on the reviewers' feedback:

Accepted: The manuscript is accepted without revisions or with only minor revisions.
Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted subject to minor revisions. Authors must address the reviewers' comments and resubmit the manuscript for final approval.
Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes. Authors must address the reviewers' concerns thoroughly and resubmit the revised manuscript for further review.
Rejected: The manuscript is rejected. This could be due to issues such as insufficient novelty, methodological flaws, or poor writing quality.

9. Appeals Process

If an author disagrees with the editorial decision or the reviewers' comments, they may appeal the decision by contacting the editorial office. The appeal should be based on substantial scientific grounds, and authors should provide a detailed justification for their appeal.

10. Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review

Reinforced Plastics Journal follows the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers and editors are expected to adhere to COPE guidelines regarding the handling of conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and the handling of research misconduct.