The Journal of Resource Valorization & Circular Systems (JRVCS) operates a rigorous double-blind peer-reviewsystem to ensure the publication of high-quality, scientifically sound, and ethically conducted research. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the journal's academic standards by providing objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and solely on their scientific merit.
- Assess the originality, significance, methodological quality, and relevance of the research.
- Provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
- Submit reviews within the requested review period.
- Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
- Maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and supporting materials throughout the review process.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should consider the following aspects when assessing a manuscript:
- Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.
- Originality and novelty of the research.
- Scientific importance and contribution to the field.
- Methodological rigor and study design.
- Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation.
- Clarity, organization, and quality of writing.
- Appropriateness and completeness of references.
- Compliance with ethical standards and reporting guidelines.
- Overall suitability for publication.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, copy, or use unpublished information contained within submitted manuscripts for personal or professional advantage.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline invitations to review manuscripts if they have any financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationship that could influence—or reasonably be perceived to influence—their impartiality.
Ethical Considerations
Reviewers are encouraged to notify the Editorial Office if they identify:
- Possible plagiarism.
- Duplicate or redundant publication.
- Fabricated or falsified data.
- Ethical concerns involving human or animal research.
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
- Any other form of research misconduct.
Editorial Recommendations
Following their evaluation, reviewers should recommend one of the following editorial decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office after consideration of all reviewer reports.