Review Process

Research Mosaic (RM) follows a structured editorial and peer-review process designed to ensure the quality, validity, originality, relevance, and integrity of published research. The process is conducted in accordance with the journal's Peer Review Policy and applicable publication-ethics standards.

1. Initial Submission and Compliance Screening: Submitted manuscripts are checked for compliance with the journal's submission requirements, including formatting, required declarations, completeness of documentation, and other applicable editorial requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further processing.
2. Similarity Screening: All submissions undergo similarity checking using Turnitin or an equivalent similarity-detection system. Manuscripts with more than 19% overall similarity or over 3% similarity from a single source require clarification or revision. Similarity results are assessed by the editorial team in context, taking into account legitimate overlap arising from quotations, references, standard terminology, methodology, or other appropriately cited material. A similarity percentage alone does not constitute a finding of plagiarism. Where potentially problematic overlap is identified, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for clarification or revision or may be rejected where appropriate.
3. Editorial and Scope Screening: The Editorial Team conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript's scope, subject relevance, originality, basic scholarly quality, and compliance with the journal's editorial requirements. Manuscripts clearly outside the journal's scope or failing essential editorial requirements may be declined at this stage, while manuscripts considered potentially suitable proceed to editorial assignment and external peer review.
4. Editor Assignment and External Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to an appropriate editor and, where suitable, sent for external peer review by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. RM uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to the extent practicable. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to relevant scholarly criteria, including originality, methodological rigor, validity, significance, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope. Where necessary, additional specialist assessment, including statistical, methodological, epidemiological, or other technical review, may be obtained.
5. Revision and Further Review: Authors may be invited to submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers where necessary. Further rounds of review may be undertaken when substantive concerns remain unresolved.
6. Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor makes the final editorial decision after considering the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scholarly merit, ethical considerations, and the journal's scope and standards. Possible decisions include accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. A reviewer's recommendation is advisory, and the final decision rests with the authorized editor.
7. Final Checks and Publication: Accepted manuscripts undergo appropriate final editorial and production checks, which may include technical, methodological, statistical, formatting, language, ethical, and metadata checks, as applicable, and authors are provided with proofs for final review before publication. Following completion of the publication process, the article is published as part of the journal's scholarly record.