Restaurator is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo a comprehensive evaluation to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scientific integrity of the research before publication.
Our peer-review process helps authors improve the quality of their work while ensuring that published articles contribute meaningfully to the academic community.
Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process, in which:
Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
Editorial decisions are based solely on the academic merit of the manuscript.
This approach promotes fairness, objectivity, and impartiality throughout the review process.
Peer Review Process
Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:
Falls within the journal’s scope.
Meets basic formatting requirements.
Demonstrates originality and academic quality.
Complies with ethical publishing standards.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without external review.
Step 2: Plagiarism Screening
All submissions are screened using plagiarism-detection tools.
Manuscripts containing significant plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical content may be rejected immediately.
Step 3: Reviewer Assignment
Eligible manuscripts are assigned to qualified independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.
Typically, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers.
Step 4: Review Evaluation
Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:
Originality and significance
Research methodology
Literature review and references
Data analysis and interpretation
Clarity of presentation
Relevance to the journal’s scope
Ethical compliance
Step 5: Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor may make one of the following decisions:
Accept without Revision
Accept with Minor Revisions
Major Revisions Required
Reject
Authors will receive reviewer comments and recommendations where applicable.
Step 6: Revision and Resubmission
Authors may be requested to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer feedback.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation if necessary.
Step 7: Final Acceptance and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, DOI assignment, and online publication.
Review Timeline
The journal strives to provide timely decisions.
Initial Editorial Screening: 1–3 Days
Peer Review Process: 1–3 Days
Publication After Acceptance: Within 3 Days
Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
Provide objective and constructive feedback.
Declare any conflicts of interest.
Complete reviews within the specified timeframe.
Uphold academic integrity and ethical standards.
Author Responsibilities
Authors must:
Submit original and unpublished work.
Accurately present research findings.
Properly cite all sources.
Disclose conflicts of interest.
Respond to reviewer comments professionally and thoroughly.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently based on scholarly merit, originality, quality, and relevance. The journal does not discriminate based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal characteristics.
Ethical Standards
The journal adheres to internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and research integrity. Any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or unethical conduct will be handled according to established publishing ethics guidelines.