Policies & Guidelines

Peer Review and Ethics

Rig-Tshoel articles go through single anonymized review process.  Once the journal editor receives your paper, we assign it to a suitable editorial board member, who will then identify and send it to an independent, anonymous expert in the field. Peer review is critical in upholding the rigour of publications in our journal, but also to aid our authors in maintaining the high quality of their contribution to the field. 

As a scholarly journal, we are working on promoting publications with utmost integrity and ethics, guided by the norms outlined in COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

2.1 Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting to Rig Tshoel must adhere to the following:

i. Originality and Plagiarism: Submissions must be original and not under consideration elsewhere. All sources must be properly cited adhering to the APA 7th edition. Plagiarism including self-plagiarism is strictly prohibited.

ii. Authorship: Authorship must reflect substantial contributions to the conception, design, analysis, or writing of the manuscript. All authors must approve the final version and agree to submission. Changes in authorship after submission require written consent from all authors.

iii. Data Integrity and Transparency: Authors must ensure accuracy of data and provide access to data upon request. We do not accept fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data.

iv. Ethical Research Conduct: Research involving human subjects, animals, or sensitive data must include evidence of ethical approval from a recognised ethics board. It is the authors responsibility to ensure confidentiality and informed consent where applicable.  

v. Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, personal conflicts that may influence the research.

2.2 Responsibilities of Reviewers

Rig Tshoel uses a single‑blind peer‑review process.

i. Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the articles received for review as confidential documents.

ii. Objectivity and Fairness: Must provide constructive, unbiased, and based solely on academic merit of the paper. Reviewers must refrain from personal criticism.

iii. Conflict of Interest: Where conflicts exist such as personal, professional, or financial relationships, reviewers must decline the review tasks.

iv. Timeliness: Reviewers should complete reviews within ONE month in each round of the review or request an extension.

2.3 Responsibilities of Editors

Editors ensure the integrity and quality of the journal’s scholarly record. Our editors are not involved in making decisions about which they have written themselves.

i. Editorial Independence: Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit and relevance in the discipline.

ii. Fair and Transparent Decision‑Making: Editors must ensure a fair, unbiased, and timely review process including in identifying potential reviewers.

iii. Handling Misconduct: Editors will follow COPE recommended procedure Retraction including plagiarism, data manipulation, or unethical research practices.

iv. Conflicts of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from decisions where conflicts of interest exist.