Responsible Education, Learning and Teaching in Emerging Economies (RELATE)
Review process at RELATE is an integral part of the publishing process of the scholarly submissions made. Objective is to ensure academic quality and rigor of the publication process.
Double Blind Review Policy
All papers submitted to RELATE undergo various steps of rigorous double blind review process by which both reviewer’s and author’s identity is not disclosed to each other in order to ensure independent review and avoid any potential conflict of interests.
Duration of Review and Publication
In order to meet growing requirement by authors for an efficient review and publication, the journal has taken appropriate measures to speed up the process yet without compromising on the quality of publication. First step is desk review whereby a paper is screened by the chief editor himself and/or assigned to editorial board. This normally takes 15-20 days after submission of the paper in order to check similarity score, appropriateness of the study with journal scope and objectives. Email is sent to the corresponding author regarding decision of this initial screening usually within a month. After a paper goes through initial screening successfully, the paper undergoes review process by the peers, in second step, by which it is sent to two reviewers who are experienced academics in the area of research the paper focuses on. These reviewers make comments on originality, contribution, appropriateness of flow of discussion and references cited in the study. After this step, review reports are sent to all authors of the paper with a letter of acceptance conditioned to fulfillment of revisions in due time or rejection/excuse. This step usually takes another 30-45 days. The third step is about sending revised copy to the copy editors who look at proofreading and editing of the paper and their report is sent to the corresponding author as well. Authors are requested to submit the proofread and edited copy of the paper within 1-3 weeks after which paper is sent for production. Print copy is sent to corresponding author on request after publication. The journal has introduced early online production system by which the advance copy of paper is published and available online before the hard copy publication.
Editorial Role in the Review Process and Conflict of Interest Policy
In order to maintain rigor and independence of review process, the papers are sent to well established scholars in the relevant field. The reviewers are different from the editorial board members. The role of editorial board members is to recommend the potential reviewers for the papers and manage the review process assigned by the managing editor.
In order to avoid conflict of interest, when papers are received from any of the editorial members, the chief editor assigns such paper to alternate editorial member to manage the review and publication process in order to maintain independence and neutrality.
Guidelines for Reviewers
- Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. If the research reported in the manuscript is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Personal criticism is likely to lead an author to ignore useful comments, making your review less useful to your field. Criticisms should be objective, not merely differences of opinion, and intended to help the author improve his or her paper.
- You should decline to review manuscripts in which you have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- If your previous or present connection with the author(s) or an author’s institution might be construed as creating a conflict of interest, but no actual conflict exists, please include this issue in your confidential comments to the editor. If in doubt, please contact the Editor who requested the review before accepting.
- Respect the confidentiality of the manuscript, which is sent to you in confidence. You should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in your own work. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript on to that person without first requesting permission to do so from the editor. Your review and your recommendation should also be considered confidential.
- If you choose to remain anonymous, ensure that you avoid comments to the authors that might serve as clues to your identity.
- Is the topic of the manuscript appropriate for the RELATE? Is the information of significant interest to the broad readership of the RELATE?
- Do the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, and conclusions accurately and consistently reflect the major point(s) of the paper?
- Is the writing concise, easy to follow, and interesting, without repetition?
- Is the aim clearly stated?
- Are the methods appropriate, scientifically sound, current, and described clearly enough that the work could be repeated by someone else?
- Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained?
- Are appropriate statistical/econometric analyses used? Are they sufficiently justified and explained? Are statements of significance justified?
- When results are stated in the text of the paper, are they supported by data? Can you verify them easily by examining tables and figures? Are any of the results counterintuitive?
- Are all tables and figures necessary, clearly labeled, well designed, and readily interpretable? Is the information in the tables and figures redundant? Is it repeated in the text?
- Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?
- Are the references cited the most appropriate to support the manuscript? Are citations provided for all assertions of fact not supported by the data in this paper? Are any key citations missing?
- Consider the length of the manuscript, relative to the content. Should any portions of the paper be expanded, condensed, combined, or deleted? (Please be specific in your advice, and don’t simply advise overall shortening by x%).
- Does the manuscript comply with the Instructions for Authors?
Does this manuscript report data or conclusions already publish or in the press? If so, please provide details.
Has the author plagiarised another publication?
Is there any indication that the data have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?
Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?