search

Editorial and Peer Review Process

ResearchHub Journal (RHJ)

hashtag
Initial Checks

Submissions to ResearchHub Journal first undergo a set of initial checks performed by the in-house editorial team that include a scope verification, author identity verification, plagiarism checks, competing interests checks and compliance with our ResearchHub Journals Editorial Policies.

hashtag
Editorial Review

After completing the initial checks, each submission is assigned to an Academic Editor with relevant subject area expertise. The Academic Editor's role is to review and oversee the submission through to the completion of peer review where they will make the decision on whether the reviewed preprint can be made a version of record.

hashtag
Peer Review

Expert reviewers are selected and invited by the Academic Editor based on expertise, publication history, and relevance, and invites them to provide feedback on the preprint version of the manuscript.

hashtag
Peer Reviewer Eligibility

Qualifications: Peer reviewers should typically hold a doctorate (PhD/MD/MBBS or equivalent) or a demonstrable public record of expertise.

Experience: Peer reviewers should have published at least three articles as a lead author in a relevant topic, with at least one article published in the last five years. If this experience is missing, peer reviewers can co-review with a colleague(s) that does have the relevant expertise and experience.

Impartiality: Peer reviewers should not have any competing interests that can bias their assessment of the work. They should not be close collaborators with authors or be personally associated with them.

Diversity: To ensure an international perspective, ResearchHub Journal strongly supports geographically diverse peer reviewers being assigned to each submission.

hashtag
Peer Review Guidelines

ResearchHub Journal recommends that peer reviewers familiarise themselves with the Committee On Publication Ethics' (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Peer reviewers are asked to provide constructive and actionable feedback using ResearchHub Journal's structured review template. To ensure a thorough and constructive review, we ask peer reviewers to read the entire preprint version of the manuscript, including figures, supplemental files and data. Feedback should be:

  • Clear, concise, and well-written

  • Provide an objective summary and evaluation of the article

  • Focus on the article's quality rather than novelty

  • Offer constructive criticism with actionable points

  • Justify any requests for citations, avoiding self-promotion

If the work includes complex statistical analysis or new statistical methods, the Academic Editor may suggest a statistics expert is required as the peer review process progresses.

hashtag
Peer Review Model

ResearchHub Journal conducts an open and transparent peer review model and uses the NISO standard terminology for peer review to explain the process:

Identity transparency: all identities visible. Peer review occurs on the preprint version of the manuscript, with the authors' identities available to reviewers and readers. The Academic Editor is named and peer reviewers' identities are published alongside their peer review reports. If multiple people write a peer review report, they can all be identified.

Reviewer interacts with: editor, other reviewers, authors. Peer reviewers are invited to review by the Academic Editors. Reviewers are also able to read any existing peer review reports and respond to them if they choose. Authors are encouraged to respond to peer review reports openly. Authors must not contact peer reviewers directly, and we ask reviewers to notify us if this has occurred.

Review information published: review reports, submitted manuscript, editor identities, reviewer identities. The most recent version of the preprint is the version undergoing peer review. When a peer review report is submitted, the ResearchHub Journal Editors will ensure that it meets the peer reviewer guidelines and is then published alongside the reviewer's identity. The peer review report is assigned a DOI, and is citable independently of the work.

Post publication commenting: Open. ResearchHub Journal has a commenting system that can be used for open discussion between the authors, reviewers, and readers. Comments should focus on the scholarly content presented in the work.

Each preprint version of the manuscript will receive a minimum of two reports which are published openly, post publication. After agreeing to review, external peer reviewers typically have 14 days to submit their review. The Academic Editors will follow up with late reviewers and keep the author notified about delays.

hashtag
Editorial Decision

The Academic Editor makes the final decision on each reviewed preprint, consulting with the wider Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief if needed. The publication decision typically happens within 21 days of submission. The Academic Editor considers reviewer feedback and their own evaluation of the manuscript in order to reach a decision whether the preprint can become a version of record.

The following decision types are available:

  • Reject — The preprint version of the manuscript has significant flaws, misleading claims or erroneous information undermining the findings and conclusions.

  • Major revision — The preprint version of the manuscript can be accepted after revisions are completed to a satisfactory level, based on the reviewer's comments.

  • Minor revision — The preprint version of the manuscript needs significant revisions and the author must respond in detail to the reviewer's comments to address their concerns.

  • Accept — The preprint version of the manuscript is cohesive and acceptable, and it does not require further scientific or experiment-driven changes to be made.

Authors can respond to reviewer feedback and revise their preprint based on the Academic Editor/s and peer reviewer's feedback and publish a new version of the preprint. The Academic Editor may make a new decision based on their own assessment of the revised preprint and the author's response to reviewers, or request additional input from external peer reviewers.

After all rounds of revisions are completed, the final editorial decision to publish as a version of record in the ResearchHub Journal is made by the Academic Editor based on the collective feedback from the reviewers and the revisions made by the authors.

If the Academic Editor decides to reject a preprint based on its peer review, the author is permitted to submit that preprint version and its associated reviews to another journal.

Last updated