The RSYN Peer Review Policy defines the principles, procedures, and ethical standards governing the evaluation of scholarly submissions handled by RSYN-managed journals, edited books, conference proceedings, and related academic publications.
This policy applies to original research articles, review papers, book chapters, conference papers, and special issue contributions.
RSYN is committed to the following principles:
RSYN applies differentiated peer review workflows depending on the publication format.
RSYN journals follow a double-blind peer review model by default:
Each manuscript is normally evaluated by two or more independent external reviewers.
Edited books follow a chapter-level peer review model:
Acceptance of a chapter does not guarantee acceptance of the entire volume.
All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment to verify:
Submissions may be desk-rejected without external review.
All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection tools. Unacceptable similarity or unethical overlap may result in rejection.
RSYN may use AI-assisted tools to support screening, including:
AI tools are decision-support only and do not replace human judgment.
Reviewers are selected based on expertise, research record, and absence of conflicts of interest.
Reviewers must provide objective feedback, maintain confidentiality, and disclose conflicts of interest.
Submissions are evaluated based on originality, relevance, methodological rigor, clarity, references, and ethical compliance.
Decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Editors retain final authority.
Authors must submit revised manuscripts with a detailed response to reviewer comments.
Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves where conflicts exist.
Ethical approvals and consent statements are mandatory where applicable.
Use of AI tools must be disclosed. AI systems may not be listed as authors.
Editors and reviewers may use AI for limited support tasks. Scholarly responsibility remains with humans.
Misconduct is handled according to COPE guidelines, including possible rejection or retraction.
Authors may submit appeals, which are reviewed independently.
RSYN recognizes reviewers through certificates and acknowledgements while preserving anonymity.
This policy is periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with best practices and indexing requirements.
Queries should be directed to the RSYN Editorial Office via official communication channels.
Note: This policy may be updated at any time without prior notice. `