Peer Review Process

Rainbow: Journal of Literature, Linguistics and Culture Studies follows a rigorous and transparent review process to ensure the quality and credibility of the published articles. The journal adopts a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review type, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous during the review process.

Submission and Initial Evaluation

All manuscripts submitted to Rainbow undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to assess their suitability and compliance with the journal's scope and guidelines. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are assigned a unique identification number for further processing.

Peer Review

Each eligible manuscript is then sent for review to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, experience, and prior contributions to the field. In cases where conflicting opinions arise, additional reviewers may be assigned to provide a comprehensive evaluation.

Double-Blind Review

Rainbow ensures a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. This helps maintain objectivity and fairness in the evaluation process, minimizing potential biases.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific quality, originality, relevance to the journal's scope, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical guidelines. Constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement are encouraged to help the authors in enhancing the quality of their work.

Review Duration

Rainbow strives to provide timely and efficient peer review. Reviewers are typically given a specific timeframe to complete their evaluations. Authors will be informed of the review process's estimated duration during the initial submission or after any significant revisions.

Decision and Revision

Upon completion of the peer review process, the editorial team considers the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Authors will receive a decision, which may include acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection. If revisions are requested, authors are expected to address all reviewers' comments thoroughly and resubmit the revised manuscript within the stipulated timeframe.

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding the publication of a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board members. The editorial team carefully considers the reviewers' assessments, the originality of the work, the relevance to the journal's scope, and the adherence to ethical standards before making a final decision.

Confidentiality

Rainbow maintains strict confidentiality in the peer review process. Reviewers are required to treat the manuscripts and their contents as confidential documents and should not disclose any information to unauthorized individuals.

Review Process Improvement

Rainbow continuously seeks to improve its review process. Authors and reviewers' feedback are invaluable in this endeavour. The journal welcomes constructive feedback and suggestions to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the review process.

If the Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

Reviewing manuscript critically, but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
Providing all required information within established deadlines
Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
Reporting possible research misconducts
Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors
Not identifying themselves to authors
Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
Writing review report in English only
Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.