Peer Review Process

Policies

Peer Review Process

 

Double-anonymous review, applied to every submission without exception.

Radiology Research Journal (RRJ) operates a double-anonymous peer review process: the identities of the authors are withheld from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are withheld from the authors. Every submission that passes initial screening is reviewed by at least two independent experts. No manuscript is accepted on the basis of editorial judgement alone.

The Review Workflow
STAGE 1 · WITHIN 7 DAYS
Submission and Technical Check
The editorial office verifies completeness: anonymised manuscript file, title page, ethics approval number, consent statements, competing interests, funding, CRediT statement, reporting checklist, and figure quality. Incomplete submissions are returned for correction.
STAGE 2 · WITHIN 7 DAYS
Similarity Screening
Every manuscript is screened with Turnitin before it reaches a reviewer. Submissions exceeding the journal's similarity threshold are returned or rejected in accordance with the Plagiarism Screening Policy.
STAGE 3 · WITHIN 14 DAYS
Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)
The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor assesses scope, originality, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope or show fundamental methodological flaws are desk rejected, with reasons given.
STAGE 4 · WITHIN 14 DAYS
Reviewer Invitation
At least two reviewers with documented expertise are invited. Reviewers confirm they have no competing interest and can meet the deadline before receiving the anonymised manuscript.
STAGE 5 · 21–28 DAYS
Peer Review
Reviewers submit a structured assessment covering originality, study design, ethical conduct, analysis, image quality and interpretation, clarity, and the strength of the conclusions relative to the evidence, together with a confidential recommendation to the editor.
STAGE 6 · WITHIN 7 DAYS
First Decision
The handling editor weighs the reviews and issues a decision. Where reviewers disagree substantially, a third reviewer is invited before any decision is made.
STAGE 7 · 14–30 DAYS
Revision
Authors return a revised manuscript with changes marked and a point-by-point response to every comment. Revisions not received within the stated period may be treated as a new submission.
STAGE 8 · WITHIN 14 DAYS
Final Decision
Major revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief takes final responsibility for acceptance.
STAGE 9 · 14–21 DAYS
Production and Publication
Accepted articles are copyedited, typeset, and returned to the author for proof approval. A DOI is assigned and the article is published in the next scheduled issue.
Indicative timeline. From submission to first decision the journal targets approximately 6 to 8 weeks, and from submission to publication approximately 4 to 6 months, depending on the number of revision rounds and the position of the article in the publication cycle. These are targets rather than guarantees; authors are notified if a stage is delayed.
Decision Categories
Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication as it stands, subject to copyediting.
Minor Revision
Limited changes are required. Re-review by the original reviewers is usually not necessary.
Major Revision
Substantial changes to analysis, presentation, or interpretation are required, followed by a further round of review.
Reject with Encouragement to Resubmit
The topic is within scope but the work requires additional data or a different analysis. A resubmission is treated as a new manuscript.
Reject
The manuscript is outside scope, methodologically unsound, ethically deficient, or does not add sufficiently to existing knowledge.
Reviewer Selection and Integrity Safeguards
How Reviewers Are Chosen
Reviewers are identified from the journal's reviewer database, the reference list of the manuscript, and searches of the recent literature. Selection is based on subject expertise and a current publication record in the relevant field.
Author-Suggested Reviewers
Authors may suggest or oppose reviewers with justification. The journal verifies the identity and institutional email address of every suggested reviewer and is not bound by any suggestion. Fabricated reviewer identities are treated as misconduct.
Exclusions
A reviewer is not invited if they share an institution with any author, have co-authored with an author within the past three years, have a supervisory relationship with an author, or hold a financial or personal interest in the outcome.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, cite, or make use of the content, must not involve a third party without editorial approval, and must not upload the manuscript to any generative AI service.
Submissions by Editors
Manuscripts authored by an editor or board member are handled by another editor with no involvement in the work. The authoring editor has no access to the reviewer identities, the reports, or the decision record at any point.
Anonymisation Duty
Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding details, and identifying self-citations from the main file, and clear identifying metadata from the document properties. Poorly anonymised files are returned before review.
Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe a decision rests on a factual error or a substantive misunderstanding may appeal. Appeals are handled under the journal's Manuscript Appeal Policy and must be submitted in writing to [EDITORIAL EMAIL] within 30 days of the decision. Complaints about the conduct of the review process, rather than its outcome, are addressed by the Editor-in-Chief under the Editorial and Publisher Responsibilities policy.

No Payment Influences a Decision

Radiology Research Journal charges no submission, review, or publication fee. No payment, gift, institutional relationship, or offer of any kind can accelerate review or affect an editorial decision. Any approach of this nature is reported to the Editor-in-Chief and may result in immediate rejection.

Radiology Research Journal (RRJ) · Peer Review Policy · Version 1.0, [MONTH YEAR]