Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Regional Studies Journal (RSJ) undergo an initial editorial screening followed by external scientific peer review once they pass the preliminary check. The journal applies a double‑blind peer review system, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential and undisclosed throughout the review process.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are referred to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise and specialization in the subject matter. The Editorial Board may assign an additional reviewer when necessary, particularly in cases of significant divergence between reviewers’ recommendations.

Authors must register in the journal’s electronic submission system before submitting their manuscripts, and all required files must be uploaded through the online platform. The journal uses iThenticate software to screen for textual similarity before sending manuscripts to reviewers. Similarity percentages are not interpreted as automatic evidence of plagiarism; rather, the Editorial Board examines the report carefully, considering the nature, sources, and context of overlapping text, and takes appropriate action in line with the journal’s policy on plagiarism and research integrity.

The journal strives to notify authors of the initial editorial decision within one to two months, although the timeframe may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript, the availability of reviewers, and the speed of their responses.

1. Submission of Manuscripts The corresponding author submits the manuscript electronically through the RSJ submission system, completing all required data and files in accordance with the author guidelines published on the journal’s website.

2. Preliminary Formal Evaluation The Editorial Board, or its designee, verifies that the manuscript meets the basic formal requirements and adheres to the submission guidelines, including formatting, abstract, keywords, references, and required files. Passing this stage does not constitute a judgment on the scientific quality of the manuscript; it only determines whether the submission meets the minimum requirements for further evaluation.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment The Editor‑in‑Chief, or a delegated editor, evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, its originality, scientific significance, and compliance with basic academic and methodological standards. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they fall outside the journal’s scope, lack originality or scholarly contribution, or fail to meet minimum academic criteria.

4. Similarity Check and Research Integrity Manuscripts are screened using iThenticate to detect textual similarities before being sent to reviewers. The results are reviewed editorially, and the journal does not rely on a single numerical threshold to determine plagiarism. Instead, the nature, source, and context of similarities are considered. If evidence of plagiarism or unjustified overlap is found, the Editorial Board takes appropriate action in accordance with the journal’s policy on plagiarism and publication ethics.

5. Selection of Reviewers and Invitations Once the manuscript passes editorial assessment and similarity screening, the Editor‑in‑Chief or the Editorial Board selects independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Invitations are sent to reviewers, ensuring that conflicts of interest are avoided and that reviewers are qualified, independent, and able to complete the evaluation within the specified timeframe.

6. Acceptance of Review Assignments Reviewers are provided with the manuscript title, abstract, and necessary information to decide whether to accept the assignment. They must confirm that the manuscript falls within their expertise and disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers are not required to accept assignments if they are not scientifically qualified or unable to complete the review within the deadline.

7. Conducting the Peer Review Each reviewer independently and confidentially evaluates the manuscript according to the journal’s scientific criteria, including originality, significance of the topic, clarity of the problem and objectives, soundness of methodology, quality of analysis, accuracy of results and conclusions, adequacy of sources and references, and scholarly presentation. Reviewers submit detailed reports with comments and editorial recommendations, which may include: acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, major revisions and resubmission, or rejection.

8. Editorial Consideration of Review Reports The Editor‑in‑Chief or the Editorial Board examines the reviewers’ reports independently and makes an editorial decision based on the scientific evaluations and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s standards. In cases of substantial disagreement between reviewers, the Editorial Board may seek an additional review before reaching a final decision.

9. Notification of Authors and Revisions The corresponding author is notified of the editorial decision through the journal’s electronic system, and reviewers’ comments are communicated without revealing their identities. If revisions are requested, the author must submit a revised version of the manuscript along with a response letter detailing how the reviewers’ comments were addressed.

10. Re‑evaluation and Final Decision When major revisions are required, the manuscript may be returned to the same reviewers or to new reviewers to verify the adequacy of the revisions. After completion of the review and revision process, the Editorial Board makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.

11. Post‑Acceptance and Publication Procedures Following final acceptance, the author is informed of any applicable Article Processing Charges (APCs) in accordance with the journal’s published policy. Once administrative requirements are completed, the manuscript undergoes copyediting, formatting, and final production. It is then assigned a DOI identifier and published electronically. The scientific acceptance decision is independent of subsequent financial or production procedures, and publication fees do not influence the editorial decision regarding acceptance.