Peer Review Process
Submissions are accepted for review with the understanding that the same work has been neither submitted to, nor published in, another publication. Concurrent submission to other publications will result in immediate rejection of the submission. Before peer review all articles are run through a plagiarism detection software.
In RiCL we take care that all submissions are revised objectively and with no conflict of interest on the part of the referees, authors or editors. All manuscripts will be subject to a blind, well-established, fair, unbiased peer review process, and are considered on the basis of their significance, novelty and usefulness to the journal's readership. Manuscripts are evaluated without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The reviewing structure will always ensure the anonymity of the referees and the authors.
All articles undergo a strict two-step blind peer-review process undertaken by experts in the corresponding areas of each contribution.
- Internal Review. Each manuscript received in RiCL is first carefully reviewed by the editors to ensure that it meets the basic requirements specified in the general and stylesheet guidelines, and that it is of sufficient quality to merit external review. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are not considered for external review. The internal review generally takes approximately two weeks.
- External Review. Submissions which meet the basic requirements are then sent out for blind peer review by two experts in the field. The external review takes approximately two to four months. Following the external review, the authors are sent copies of the external reviewers’ comments and are notified as to the decision.
The review output will be one of the following decisions:
- Accept with minor changes
- Accept with major changes
Should authors be requested by the editors to revise the text, the revised version should be submitted within two months for a major revision or one month for a minor revision. Authors who need more time are kindly requested to contact the editors. The editors reserve the right to reject a paper if it does not meet the aims and scope of the journal, it is not technically sound, it is not revised satisfactorily, or if it is inadequate in presentation.
Revised versions should follow the same requirements as for the final versions to format the paper, plus a short summary about the modifications authors have made and the author's response to the reviewer's comments.
Authors will receive the notification of acceptance by email from the editors, with the guidelines of how to finalize the other publication procedures.