The Journal of Research and Development (JRD) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and scientific quality through a rigorous, transparent, and ethical double-blind peer review process. This process ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly and objectively, promoting scholarly excellence across a wide range of disciplines.

1. Overview of the Review Model

JRD follows a double-blind peer review system, in which:

• Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers
• Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors

This approach minimizes bias and ensures an impartial assessment based on the merit and quality of the work.

2. Stages of the Peer Review Process

a. Initial Editorial Screening

• All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial review by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated section editor.
• The manuscript is evaluated for originality, relevance, structure, and adherence to journal guidelines.
• Submissions that do not meet basic criteria or fall outside the journal’s scope may be desk rejected without peer review.

b. Reviewer Assignment

• Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to two or more expert reviewers based on subject expertise.
• Reviewers are selected from our global network of scholars, practitioners, and technical experts.

c. Review Phase

• Reviewers are given 14–21 days to complete their evaluations.
• They provide detailed, constructive feedback on the manuscript's strengths, limitations, and areas for improvement.
• Reviewers submit a clear recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

d. Editorial Decision

• The handling editor considers all reviewer comments and makes a decision.
• In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer or the Editor-in-Chief may be consulted.
• The decision is communicated to the author along with anonymized reviewer feedback.

e. Revision and Resubmission

• Authors are invited to revise their manuscript based on reviewer suggestions and must submit a point-by-point response.
• Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers for final approval.

f. Final Acceptance and Publication

• Once all revisions are satisfactorily addressed, the manuscript is accepted and proceeds to production.
• The article is copyedited, formatted, and published online with open access.

3. Review Timelines

• Initial Editorial Screening: 5–7 days
• Peer Review Duration: 2–3 weeks
• Revision and Final Decision: 1–2 weeks after resubmission
• Total Turnaround Time: Typically 4–6 weeks from submission to first decision

4. Review Integrity and Confidentiality

• All submitted materials and peer review correspondence are treated as confidential.
• Reviewers are expected to disclose any conflicts of interest and decline reviews where impartiality is compromised.
• The editorial office monitors review quality and timelines to ensure accountability and transparency.

5. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal decisions or raise concerns about the review process by contacting the editorial office. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent advisory editor to ensure fair resolution.

6. Reviewer Recognition

To honor the valuable contributions of reviewers:

• Certificates of review are issued upon request.
• Top reviewers are acknowledged annually on the journal’s website.
• Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the editorial board or serve as guest editors.

The peer review process at JRD ensures credibility, quality, and impact - advancing research that drives real-world development.

For further questions, contact us at editorialoffice@sciconx.org