Peer Review Policy

Research Mosaic (RM) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to all primary research manuscripts that proceed to external review. Under the double-blind system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the peer-review process, to the extent reasonably practicable. RM is committed to conducting peer review in an independent, objective, confidential, and academically rigorous manner appropriate to the discipline and type of manuscript.

1. Submission of Manuscripts: The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS) in accordance with the journal's Instructions for Authors. Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee publication or entitlement to external peer review, as all manuscripts are subject to initial editorial assessment.

2. Initial Editorial Screening: Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Complies with the journal's submission requirements;
  • Falls within the journal's stated scope;
  • Contains the required declarations and supporting information;
  • Meets applicable technical and scholarly requirements; and
  • Is suitable for further editorial consideration.

The journal may conduct similarity/plagiarism screening and other preliminary checks at this stage. Such initial screening is an editorial and administrative assessment and does not constitute substantive external peer review.

3. Editorial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief, or an appropriately qualified editor designated by the Editor-in-Chief, assesses the manuscript for suitability for the journal, including it’s:

  • Originality;
  • Scholarly contribution;
  • Relevance to the journal's scope;
  • Methodological appropriateness;
  • Academic significance; and
  • Overall suitability for external review.

A manuscript may be declined without external peer review where it is clearly outside the journal's scope, fails to satisfy essential scholarly or ethical requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for further consideration.

4. Assignment to an Associate Editor: Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment may be assigned to an Associate Editor or another appropriately qualified member of the editorial board, who conducts the necessary editorial assessment and oversees the peer-review process. Editors must handle manuscripts objectively and independently and must disclose and appropriately manage any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

5. External Peer Review: Each primary research manuscript that proceeds to external review is independently evaluated by at least two qualified external peer reviewers with appropriate subject-matter expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their relevant scholarly expertise, research experience, academic qualifications, publication record, and suitability to evaluate the particular manuscript. Reviewers may be drawn from national or international institutions, and RM seeks appropriate geographic and institutional diversity within its reviewer pool. Reviewer selection is based primarily on scholarly competence, subject expertise, independence, and suitability rather than nationality or institutional affiliation. Where appropriate, the editor may obtain an additional assessment from a suitably qualified specialist or statistical/methodological reviewer when a manuscript involves substantial quantitative, statistical, epidemiological, methodological, or other specialized analysis.

6. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must be independent of the authors and must not have any relationship or interest that could reasonably compromise the impartiality of their assessment. Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment, and the journal will not knowingly appoint a reviewer where a conflict of interest could reasonably affect the objectivity or integrity of the review.

7. Double-Blind Review: RM operates a double-blind peer-review system in which authors do not know the identities of reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of authors, to the extent reasonably practicable. Reviewers are expected not to attempt to identify the authors of manuscripts assigned to them and must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all associated review materials.

8. Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to criteria appropriate to the discipline and type of research. These may include:

  • Originality and scholarly contribution;
  • Significance and relevance of the research;
  • Theoretical or conceptual foundation;
  • Appropriateness and rigour of the methodology;
  • Validity and reliability of data and analysis;
  • Ethical considerations;
  • Clarity and coherence of presentation;
  • Interpretation and discussion of findings;
  • Adequacy and appropriateness of references;
  • Consistency with the journal's scope; and
  • Overall scholarly quality.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, substantive, and evidence-based comments that enable the editor to make an informed decision and assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

9. Reviewer Recommendations: Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision; or
  • Reject.

A reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not, by itself, determine publication; the final publication decision is an editorial decision made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor after consideration of the peer-review reports and the manuscript as a whole.

10. Evaluation of Peer-Review Reports: The responsible editor evaluates the reviewers' reports and considers the substance, consistency, methodological reasoning, and academic basis of the recommendations before making an editorial decision. Where reviewers provide substantially conflicting assessments, or where additional specialist expertise is required, the editor may obtain an additional independent peer review. Editorial decisions are not made solely by mechanically counting reviewer recommendations; the editor considers the substantive academic content of the reviews, the quality of the manuscript, methodological soundness, ethical considerations, and overall scholarly contribution.

11. Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor makes the editorial decision after considering:

  • The manuscript;
  • The peer-review reports;
  • The authors' responses, where applicable;
  • Any revisions;
  • Relevant ethical or research-integrity considerations; and
  • The overall scholarly merit of the work.

The decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's electronic submission system or by email, and, where applicable, reviewers' comments and editorial instructions are provided to the authors.

12. Revision and Further Review: Where revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • A revised manuscript; and
  • A detailed response explaining how the reviewers' and editors' comments have been addressed.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or referred to new reviewers where the responsible editor considers further independent assessment necessary.

13. Final Editorial Assessment: Following revision and, where applicable, further peer review, the responsible editor determines whether the manuscript adequately addresses the substantive concerns raised during the review process. The editor may:

  • Accept the manuscript;
  • Request further revision;
  • Obtain additional peer review; or
  • Reject the manuscript where material concerns remain unresolved.

14. Final Acceptance: A manuscript is formally accepted only after the responsible editor determines that it satisfies the journal's applicable scholarly, methodological, ethical, and editorial requirements; acceptance is an editorial decision and is not determined solely by the recommendation of any individual reviewer.

15. Copyediting, Production and Proofreading: Following acceptance, the manuscript undergoes copyediting, formatting/layout, technical checks, and proofreading as appropriate. Authors are provided with proofs for final verification before publication, and proofreading and production editing do not substitute for substantive peer review.

16. Confidentiality and Research Integrity: All manuscripts submitted for consideration, together with peer-review reports and editorial correspondence, are treated as confidential, and editors and reviewers must maintain confidentiality and must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal, professional, or other unauthorized purposes. RM may suspend or discontinue consideration of a manuscript where concerns arise regarding:

  • Plagiarism or substantial textual similarity;
  • Duplicate or redundant publication;
  • Fabrication or falsification of data;
  • Unethical research;
  • Authorship or contributorship;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Manipulation of the peer-review process; or
  • Other research-integrity concerns.

Where appropriate, such matters will be handled in accordance with RM's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy and recognized scholarly publishing standards.

17. Appeals against Editorial Decisions: An author who believes that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, material misunderstanding of the manuscript, or demonstrable inconsistency with the journal's stated editorial policy may submit a reasoned written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must clearly identify the grounds for reconsideration and address the specific decision or procedural issue in question; an appeal is not intended merely to challenge a reviewer's academic judgment because the author disagrees with the reviewer's assessment. Where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief may review the editorial record and peer-review reports and may obtain an additional independent assessment. An editor who has a conflict of interest in relation to the manuscript or the original decision will not participate in the appeal. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the author, and the decision on an appeal is final within the journal's editorial process.

18. Reviewer Records and Editorial Documentation: RM maintains appropriate editorial records relating to:

  • Manuscript submissions;
  • Editorial screening;
  • Reviewer invitations;
  • Reviewer assignments;
  • Reviewer reports;
  • Editorial decisions;
  • Author revisions;
  • Responses to reviewers; and
  • Final publication outcomes.

Such records are maintained in accordance with applicable confidentiality, privacy, publication-ethics, and research-integrity requirements, and the journal may assess reviewer performance based on factors such as the quality, relevance, thoroughness, constructiveness, and timeliness of reviews to maintain the effectiveness, consistency, and integrity of the peer-review process.