Editorial Policies

For Editors:

  • JRTM emphasizes that all of its editors act politely, fairly but firmly at all times.
  • The Editors of JRTM are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. JRTM follows COPE guidance on retractions of manuscripts.
  • The editor of JRTM actively seeks the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes.
  • The editors of JRTM also assesses the effects of the journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct.
  • The editor also tries to ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate). They also ensure that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified.
  • Editor of JRTM adopts processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists.
  • Editor’s decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication is based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
  • Editors shall provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance will be regularly updated as per the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines.
  • Editors of JRTM are not denied the ability to publish in their own journal, but it should be done without exploiting their position. The journal shall develop a procedure for handling submissions from the editor or members of the editorial board that ensures that peer review is handled independently of the author/editor.
  • A description of peer review processes has been published in about us page.
  • Guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them is done in Author guidelines page.

For Peer Reviewers:

Peer review in all its form plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process. The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for journals and editors in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.

Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere

Peer reviewers should

  • Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise which is required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
  • Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal 
  • Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  • Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  • Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments
  • Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
  • Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  • Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process isconsidered serious misconduct.
  • If a reviewer wants to pass a review request onto a colleague, they should get the editor’s permission beforehand.

COPE guidelines for Peer Review