Ethics 

RABBANICA – Journal of Revealed Knowledge is a double-blind, peer-reviewed international journal committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. Therefore, preventing publication malpractice is one of the essential responsibilities of the editorial board. To that purpose, all the actors of RABBANICA – Journal of Revealed Knowledge publication, authors, reviewers and members of the editorial team, are expected to fully adhere to our policy regarding publication ethics and malpractice and respect the following statements:

 

Editors Responsibilities

1. Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's research without the author's express written consent.
2. Editors must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors.
3. Editors should ensure the integrity of the publication review process. As such, editors should not reveal the identity of manuscript authors to reviewers or the identity of reviewers to authors.
4. Editors must ensure that all the information about submitted manuscripts is kept confidential before publishing.

Editorial Board Responsibilities

1. The Editorial Board decides which submitted articles should be published.
2. The Editorial Board must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.
3. The Editorial Board is accountable for everything published in the journal. Thus, they have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article. However, the published manuscript would not represent the stand or opinion of the Editorial Board and the Management Team of RABBANICA – Journal of Revealed Knowledge.
4. The Editorial Board should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. They shall conduct a proper and fair investigation into ethical complaints.

Reviewer’s Responsibilities

1. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or talked about with others except as the editor has authorised.
2. Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest regarding the research, the authors, or the research funding.
3. The reviewers' judgments should be as objective as possible. I just wanted to let you know that there shall be no personal criticism of the author. They should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. If a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete the manuscript review within the stipulated time, this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.

Author’s Responsibilities

1. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original and that if they have used the work and words of others, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
2. They must ensure that the manuscript has not been issued elsewhere. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently constitutes unacceptable publishing behaviour.
3. Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4. If, at any point in time, the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor. Suppose the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error. In that case, the author must promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Our journal's ethics statements are based on the Ethical Code of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Transfer of Copyright

RABBANICA – Journal of Revealed Knowledge accepts manuscripts that have not been published elsewhere and are not under consideration for publication by other print or electronic media. The authors agree to transfer the copyright to the editorial office of the RABBANICA – Journal of Revealed Knowledge. However, it can be reprinted with a proper acknowledgement that it was published in the journal RABBANICA – Journal of Revealed Knowledge.

 

-----

Peer Review Process

Submitting manuscripts for publication in the RABBANICA Journal will involve several steps to ensure a thorough and impartial peer review.

 

STEP 1: Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their research articles to the journal. The Editor in Chief then assigns the manuscript to the Managing Editor for further handling.

STEP 2: Manuscript Check and Selection

The Managing Editor and Editorial Team conduct an initial check and selection process. They may either accept the manuscript, reject it, or decide to proceed with the review. Additionally, each submitted manuscript undergoes a plagiarism check using Turnitin.

STEP 3: Manuscript Reviewing Process

The Managing Editor requests that at least two experts in the field review the ‎manuscript. The peer-review process is conducted as a double-blind review, ‎meaning the identities of both the reviewers and authors are concealed. Reviewers are provided with a review form from the Journal.‎

STEP 4: Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection.

Upon receiving reviewer feedback, the Editor in Chief notifies the author of the manuscript's acceptance, need for revision, or rejection while preserving the reviewers' anonymity.

STEP 5: Paper Revision.

If requested, the author can revise the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments and suggestions. The author can also submit a response letter addressing each comment and explaining the changes made.

Revision Submission based on the Reviewer’s Suggestion:

After making the necessary revisions, the author resubmits the manuscript using the same submission route as in Step 1.

Notification for Acceptance

If the reviewer is satisfied with the revisions, the editor informs the author that the manuscript has been accepted for publication.

STEP 6: Galley Proof and Publishing Process

The manuscript undergoes the galley proof stage, where formatting, copyediting, and proofreading are carried out. Following these processes, the paper is published in either print or online, based on the journal's publishing format.

 

IMPORTANT NOTES:

The steps described above constitute one round of the peer-review process. The Editor in Chief and the editorial board thoroughly evaluate the feedback from the peer reviewers to make a decision. Possible decisions include;

• Accepted as it is: The manuscript has been accepted for publication in its original form.
• Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript has been accepted, and the author is asked to make minor corrections within a specified timeframe.
• Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript is accepted, but the author must address the changes ‎the reviewers or editors suggested within a specified timeframe.‎
• Resubmit (Conditional Rejection): The journal is open to reconsidering the manuscript for another round of decision-making after the authors make significant revisions.
• Rejected (Outright Rejection): The journal has decided not to publish the manuscript, even if major revisions are made.