Peer Review Policy

Renaissance of Universal Mind · RUM PUBLISHING GROUP MCHJ

1. Model and coverage

Research manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review: author and reviewer identities are withheld from each other during review. Editors necessarily know the identities for administration and conflict checks. This does not mean that reports are published openly. Research reviews and short communications must receive appropriate scholarly assessment; any exception to the usual process should be identified for readers.

2. Initial editorial and plagiarism screening

Editors check scope, completeness, readable files, declarations, originality and ethical acceptability before inviting scientific review. All submissions receive mandatory similarity screening through Milliy Antiplag, followed by editorial interpretation. A favourable similarity result does not imply scientific acceptance; out-of-scope, incomplete or ethically unacceptable work may be returned or rejected with reasons.

3. Reviewer selection and number

The existing declared policy normally calls for at least two independent experts. Editors select reviewers for subject expertise and freedom from relevant conflicts; close collaborators and same-institution reviewers should be avoided where independence is compromised. Author suggestions may be considered but do not bind the editor; identities and expertise must be verified. Additional advice may be sought when reports conflict or specialist issues arise.

4. What reviewers assess

Reviewers examine the research question, contribution, methods, evidence, analysis, figures and tables, conclusions, limitations, references and ethical reporting, including relevant supplementary material. They must distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions, avoid coercive citations and report concerns privately. They must not upload confidential material to unauthorised public AI services.

5. Revision and final editorial decision

Authors respond to comments point by point and explain changes or reasoned disagreement; revised work may be reviewed again. Decisions include acceptance, minor or major revision, or rejection. Reviewers advise; the editor responsible for the decision weighs the evidence and reports. Acceptance is not guaranteed by favourable reviews, a low similarity score or use of any paid service. Appeals follow the published complaints procedure.

6. Workflow and timing

Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Milliy Antiplag Screening and Editorial Verification → Double-Blind Peer Review → Author Revision (when requested) → Final Editorial Decision → Copyediting and Proofs → Publication. Rejection or further review may occur at the appropriate stage. No guaranteed acceptance date or universal review duration is stated; authors should request a manuscript-specific update if delayed.

Related policies and information

Editorial office: editor@rum-journal.com.