Peer Review Process

The peer review process serves as a crucial mechanism for preserving the scholarly quality and academic integrity of research published in The Rubrics Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. By implementing a rigorous evaluation framework, this process ensures that submitted manuscripts receive comprehensive scrutiny, providing authors with constructive feedback to refine their work while upholding the journal’s commitment to publishing methodologically robust and intellectually significant research.

Submission and Initial Screening

  1. Submission: Manuscripts must be submitted electronically through the specified online submission platform. This platform is designed to ensure a smooth and efficient submission process for all contributors.
  2. Initial Screening: The editorial team carries out a preliminary review to assess the suitability of each manuscript. This evaluation includes an examination of its alignment with the journal’s objectives and compliance with the submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these standards may be declined during this initial assessment.

Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts are subjected to plagiarism detection using industry-standard software. Submissions exhibiting excessive similarity to previously published works or evidence of academic misconduct are summarily rejected.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

  1. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant discipline.
  2. Anonymity: The journal adheres to a double-blind review protocol, wherein the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess submissions based on the following scholarly benchmarks:

  • Originality and Relevance: The significance and novelty of the research topic within the field.
  • Methodological Rigor: Clarity of research objectives, appropriateness of methodology, and robustness of analytical frameworks.
  • Contribution to Knowledge: The substantive value and implications of the findings.
  • Argumentation and Structure: Logical coherence, theoretical grounding, and clarity of presentation.
  • Ethical Compliance: Proper attribution of sources and adherence to established research ethics.

Reviewer Recommendations

Upon evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication without further revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited modifications before acceptance.
  • Major Revisions: Substantive revisions are necessary, warranting re-evaluation upon resubmission.
  • Reject: The manuscript fails to meet the journal’s academic standards.

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on publication after considering the assessments from reviewers and the policies of the publication. Authors are informed of this decision, along with feedback from reviewers and any necessary revisions.

Revision Process

  1. Minor Revisions: Authors are allotted a brief period to address reviewers’ suggestions.
  2. Major Revisions: Authors are granted an extended timeframe for substantial revisions, after which the revised manuscript undergoes further peer review.

Final Approval and Publication

After completing the necessary revisions, the review team conducts a final review to confirm that all standards and guidelines have been met. Once approved, the documents are slated for inclusion in the next available edition.

AI Use Disclosure

  • Authors must declare any generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) used in writing, analysis, or data generation.
  • AI tools cannot be listed as co-authors; human accountability for content is required.
  • Violations may result in retraction or sanctions as outlined in COPE guidelines.

University-Mandated Standards

  • Complies with institutional review policies.
  • Requires funding sources, conflicts of interest, and ethical clearance to be declared.

Turnaround Time

The peer review process typically requires 1–3 weeks, contingent upon reviewer availability and the extent of revisions requested.

Ethical Considerations

The journal strictly adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ensuring fairness, impartiality, and ethical integrity throughout the review process.

Production and Dissemination

Accepted manuscripts are subjected to professional editing, formatting, and review before being made available online under an open-access model, ensuring widespread distribution to the academic community.

Confidentiality and Transparency

All submissions and communications during the review process are kept confidential. The use of a double-blind review ensures fairness, while the organization promotes transparency in its procedures, adhering to the highest ethical standards in publishing.

If you have any queries related to the above peer review process/policy, kindly write to therubrics@gmail.com