Publication Ethics and Malpractice
The RECOLETOS MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH JOURNAL (RMRJ) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractices. RMRJ commits herself to objective and fair double-blind peer-review of the submitted for publication works and to prevent any actual or potential conflict of interests between the editorial and review personnel and the reviewed material. Any departures from the stipulated guidelines should be reported directly to the Editor-in-Chief, who is unequivocally committed to providing swift resolutions to any such problems.
RMRJ is dedicated to promoting knowledge through high-quality research publications in various disciplines. She is committed to editorial independence, diversity, and equity. Submissions from people of different backgrounds and geographic locations are welcome. Submissions are assigned to editors who will do the initial review. Should the manuscript be suitable for consideration by RMRJ, the paper will be sent to at least two independent peer reviewers. The peer reviewers' assessments are used to inform the associate editor's decision on whether or not to recommend publication. Endorsed papers will be forwarded to the Chief Editor for final approval.
We do not put up with rude behavior or letters directed at our editors, staff, or other people helping us publish. We have the right to take appropriate measures to safeguard others from it. This situation may involve, for instance, withdrawing a manuscript from consideration or objecting to offensive remarks made by peers.
Peer Review Process
Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field who are qualified and able to perform impartial reviews. Likewise, it also refers to the work done while screening submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This normative process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline. It prevents disseminating unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Peer review increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified and fixed. For both grant funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also usually required that the subject be both novel and substantial.
Reviewers and editors are responsible for providing a constructive and prompt evaluation of submitted research papers based on the significance of their contribution and the rigors of analysis and presentation.
There are two or three referees for a given article. Two are experts on the topic, and one is an expert in research and statistics who shall review the technical components of the research. These referees revert the evaluation of the work that indicates the observed weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. The board then evaluates the referees' comments and notes the opinion of the manuscript before passing the decision with the referees' comments back to the author(s).
Criteria for Acceptance and Rejection
A manuscript is accepted when
- it is endorsed for publication by at least two referees,
- it substantially complies with the instructions of the reviewers;
- it complies with the ethical standards and protocols with studies involving humans and animals;
- the manuscript passed the plagiarism detection test with a score of at most 10% Similarity Index and a Grammarly Rating of 95% or more. Otherwise, the manuscript is returned to the author(s).
The referees' evaluations include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript, chosen from options provided by the journal. Most recommendations are along the following lines:
- Accept without revisions
- Accept with minor revisions
- Accept with major revisions
- Reject with the option to resubmit
In situations where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of work, there are several strategies for reaching a decision. When the editor receives positive and negative reviews for the same manuscript, the board will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. In the case of ties, the board may invite authors to reply to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. Suppose the editor does not feel confident in weighing the persuasiveness of a rebuttal. In that case, the board may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. In rare instances, the board will convey communications between an author and a referee, thereby allowing them to debate on a point. Even in such a case, however, the board does not allow referees to confer with each other, and the goal of the process is explicitly not to reach a consensus or to convince anyone to change his/ her opinions.
RMRJ welcomes the submission of comments on previous articles. Comments on articles previously published in the journal will generally be reviewed by two reviewers, usually an author of the original article (to assist the editor in evaluating whether the submitted comment represents the previous article's accuracy) and an independent reviewer. The original author will be invited to reply if a comment is accepted for publication. All other editorial requirements, as enumerated above, apply to proposed comments.
RMRJ picks its reviewers through its editorial office. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts to referee the manuscript. The identities of the referees selected by the Editorial Board are kept unknown to research authors. However, the reviewer's identity can be disclosed under some particular circumstances. Disclosure of Peer Review can be granted under the following grounds: as evidence to prove that the published paper underwent peer review as required by the University for ranking and financial incentives, for regulatory bodies such as the Commission on Higher Education, Accreditation of Academic Programs. Requests for peer review results shall be made in writing.
Authorship and Contributorship
All authors submitting their works to the RMRJ for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors' contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works.
RMRJ adheres to COPE's first two requirements in defining authorship: a. making a substantial contribution to the work and b. being accountable for the work and its published form. Substantial contribution includes revising the manuscript to include important intellectual content.
Corresponding authors are to use their institutional email in the submission process. All contributing authors are to be declared upon submission. Their names, ORCID number, and affiliation are to be written on the cover page and submitted separately in the journal's portal as a separate file. Only authors whose names are found on the cover page upon submission are acknowledged as authors. Individuals who do not meet the criteria for authorship may be mentioned in the Acknowledgements section of their publication.
We reserve the right to review all contributions using proper plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin. The journal permits a similarity rating of no more than 10%. Submissions that have more than the permitted rating will be rejected or given the option to resubmit. We will adhere to the procedures indicated in the Retractions section of these guidelines if plagiarism is found after publication. Any allegations of plagiarism should be reported to us by our readers, reviewers, and editors.
Duplicate and Redundant Policy
RMRJ does not endorse significant publication overlap. When overlap is necessary, it is only permitted if the manuscript may advance the field of study, has the explicit endorsement of the original publication, and cites the original source. (Cambridge University Press, Version 4.0, September 20, 2021).
Policy on Conflicts of Interest and Funding
The authors declare that they have revealed all actual and potential conflicts of interest and any partial advantages related to their work. Additionally, RMRJ demands that writers include a statement about their funding. Additionally, editors and reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicting interests that can compromise the impartiality or integrity of a publication.
RMRJ makes it a point of adhering to COPE's Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, and we encourage our publishing partners to do the same.
Policy on Retraction
Retraction is an act of the journal publisher to remove a published article from the digital file due to post-publication discovery of fraudulent claims by the research, plagiarism, or serious errors of methodology which escaped detection in the quality assurance process. Complaints by third-party researchers on any of the grounds validated by the editorial office trigger the retraction but only after the writer has been notified and allowed to present his side in compliance with due process.
Policy on Digital Preservation
Digital Preservation is systematically storing electronic files in multiple formats such as compact discs, cloud computing, Google drive, email accounts, and external hard drives, among others. This process guarantees that in conditions where the website crashes, there is a natural calamity, fire, and other man-made destructions, virus invasions, and the files are preserved.
Policy on Handling Complaints
The journal investigates complaints on any contribution regarding infringements on the copyright or other intellectual property rights, material inaccuracies, libelous materials, or otherwise unlawful materials published by her. The investigation may include a request that the parties involved substantiate their claims. The Journal will make a good-faith distribution whether to remove the allegedly unlawful material. A decision not to remove material should represent the Journal's belief that the complaint lacks sufficient foundation. If well-founded, legal defense or exemption may apply, such as fair use in the case of copyright infringement or truthfulness of a statement in the case of libel. Journal should document its investigation and decision. After investigation, if an author is found guilty, the article shall be subjected to the retraction policy.
Policy on Use of Human Subjects in Research
The Journal will only publish research articles involving human subjects after the author(s) have verified that they have followed all laws and regulations concerning human subjects' protections. The appropriate Ethics Review Board (ERB) must have approved the research protocol. In the case of exempt research, the ERB must have deemed the research protocol exempt. The IRB must submit a Certificate of Approval along with the manuscript.
Research Authorization or Permit Requirement
When applicable, the following authorization or permit shall be submitted as an attachment to the manuscript for consideration:
- For Studies that involved human subjects: Ethics Clearance and, if applicable, National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) permit
- For studies that used biological materials where genetic manipulation is involved or the introduction of exotic or imported plants, microorganisms, or animals: Biosafety permit
- For studies conducted on animals: Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) Clearance/Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) authorization
- For studies that covered the protected areas of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR): Gratuitous Permit
Publication Frequency and Fee
The publication of the RMRJ is bi-annual. Article submission is completely free. Every article published is free of any processing or publishing fees.
Open Access and Copyright Policy
RMRJ offers open access to its contents on the principle that it supports a greater global knowledge exchange. Hence, it does not charge its readers any subscription fee to access the full text of all its articles. Permission to read, download, and print from the publisher or author is unnecessary. Also, the journal accepts articles for publication at no cost on the author's part.
RMRJ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Authors grant the publisher an exclusive publication right but retain copyright in their article. In this case, the author/s have the right to (a) share their article in the same ways permitted to third parties under the relevant user license so long as it contains the publisher's logo and a link to the version of record on Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal; (b) retain patent, trademark and other intellectual property rights (including research data); and (c) proper attribution and credit for the published work (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/copyright#Author-rights).
Appeals and Complaints
All appeals and complaints are to be in writing and addressed to the Editor in Chief of the RMRJ. These concerns are to be addressed by the members of the RMRJ Editorial Board. Emails are to be sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Sponsor and Source of Support
The RMRJ is sponsored and funded by the Center for Policy, Research and Development Studies of the University of San Jose-Recoletos; contact number 032-2537900 loc. 244; Email: email@example.com