Evaluation Process

All manuscripts submitted to JRUSD are carefully evaluated to support academic quality, scholarly integrity, fairness, and editorial independence. The review process may vary depending on the type of contribution. Original Research Articles and other manuscripts designated for external review normally undergo double-blind peer review. Other scholarly contributions may be assessed editorially by the responsible editor in coordination with the JRUSD Editorial Team. Where additional specialist input is considered useful, the journal may invite external expert review before an editorial decision is made.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
    After submission, the editorial office conducts an initial review to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration. This includes:
    • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
    • Compliance with the author guidelines, including required files and statements
    • Basic scholarly quality and suitability for the appropriate review pathway
    Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, are incomplete, or do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to the authors at this stage.
  2. Similarity / Plagiarism Screening (Turnitin)
    Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked for similarity using Turnitin. The purpose of this screening is to help identify possible plagiarism, redundant publication, or inappropriate reuse of previously published text.

    When significant overlap or other ethical concerns are identified, the editors may ask the authors for clarification, request appropriate corrections or attribution, or decline the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics and misconduct policies.

  3. Peer Review and Editorial Review

    Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Technical Papers, Case Studies, and Critical Reviews proceed to double-blind peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed. Each manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise and no identified conflicts of interest. Authors may suggest potential reviewers where permitted, but the final selection of reviewers remains the responsibility of the editors.

    Invited Perspectives are subject to editorial review rather than external peer review. These contributions are evaluated by the responsible editor in coordination with the JRUSD Editorial Team for relevance, quality, clarity, and alignment with the journal’s scope. External expert advice may be sought at the editors’ discretion, but Invited Perspectives are not classified as peer-reviewed articles.

  4. Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Responsible Use of Tools
    Reviewers and editors are expected to:
    • Treat manuscripts and all associated review materials as confidential
    • Disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal conflict of interest and decline involvement when appropriate

    Confidentiality and AI/tools: Reviewers must not upload, paste, or otherwise share manuscript content—including text, figures, tables, references, or data—with public AI tools or third-party services that may retain, reuse, or disclose that content. If a secure, institutionally approved tool is used solely for language assistance, identifiable manuscript content must not be shared. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the judgment, analysis, and recommendations provided in their reports.

  5. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations
    For manuscripts undergoing external peer review, reviewers are asked to provide constructive, evidence-based comments and may recommend one of the following outcomes:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision (Revise and Resubmit)
    • Reject
    For contributions handled through editorial review, the responsible editor may likewise recommend acceptance, revision, further assessment, or rejection based on the quality, relevance, clarity, and scholarly value of the submission.
  6. Editorial Decision and Independence

    The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appointed Handling Editor, taking into account reviewer reports or editorial assessments, the scholarly merit of the manuscript, and the journal’s editorial standards.

    Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, or where additional expertise is considered necessary, the journal may invite an additional reviewer or consult an appropriate member of the Editorial Board before reaching a final decision.

    All editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly considerations and are not influenced by an author’s institutional affiliation, nationality, or other unrelated factors. If an editor has a conflict of interest—for example, through authorship, close collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, or a personal relationship—the manuscript will be reassigned to another qualified editor to ensure an impartial editorial process.

  7. Revisions and Final Acceptance
    When revisions are requested, authors are normally asked to submit:
    • A revised manuscript
    • A point-by-point response addressing the reviewers’ or editors’ comments, together with a marked or track-changes version where requested
    A manuscript may be accepted once the editors are satisfied that the requested revisions have been adequately addressed. Additional rounds of peer review or editorial assessment may be undertaken when necessary.
  8. Review Criteria
    Depending on the type of contribution and its review pathway, manuscripts may be assessed using the following criteria:
    • Originality and contribution to the field
    • Clarity of aims, structure, and argumentation
    • Methodological soundness and ethical compliance, where applicable
    • Quality and rigor of analysis and interpretation, where applicable
    • Relevance to the journal’s scope and readership
    • Adequacy and transparency of reporting, references, and data, where applicable