Peer Review Process

Conference Planners:

It is expected that the URNCST conference planning committee will hold their own peer-review process to screen for which abstracts articles they wish to see presented at their conference. The URNCST Journal requires that each planning committee will take the necessary steps to ensure that all abstracts are sufficiently worthy of publication and that consent has been obtained from all authors of all articles or abstracts to have their work published in the journal.

For Selected Individual Authors:

Prior to submission, authors must ensure that all studies described in the manuscript have been conducted ethically (i.e. if your study involved human or animal participants, you are required to state in your manuscript that your study was approved by your institution's research ethics board). Authors should only submit original material and ensure that the methodology is appropriate for the study conducted, and that the results, discussion, and conclusions are reported appropriately and accurately. It is expected that the first author will consult their research supervisor to ensure that the manuscript meets all of these criteria prior to making a submission to the URNCST Journal. If the section editor finds that one or more of these criteria are not met when reviewing a submission, they will contact the author to make the necessary revisions prior to sending the manuscript out for peer review.

During the submission process, authors should provide the names of up to with whom they do not have conflicts of interest, and who they believe are suitable experts in reviewing their study. Authors should also declare the names of people who they do not wish to serve as peer-reviewers.

Upon receiving a manuscript submission, the manuscript will be assigned to a section editor who will first determine if the manuscript adheres to the following three conditions: 1) the first author 2) the manuscript meets the criteria outlined in Instructions for Authors and 3) the manuscript falls within the scope of the URNCST journal. If all three conditions are satisfied, section editors will send the manuscript out for peer-review to at least 2 experts in the field, which may or may not include one or more author-suggested peer-reviewers. The URNCST Journal section editors and peer-reviewers will both be acknowledged in the published manuscript should it be accepted for publication.

Once at least 2 peer-reviewers have submitted their review and a section editor has had the opportunity to review their comments and deems that no further peer-reviewers are required, the section editor will contact you to inform you of our decision on whether to accept your manuscript and whether further modifications are required to improve the quality of your article. If your manuscript is rejected by the section editor, this decision is final and cannot be appealed. If your manuscript is recommended for acceptance pending major or minor revisions, the section editor will provide further instruction and a turnaround time during which you will have the opportunity to address the requested revisions, after which your revised manuscript may or may not be sent back to the peer-reviewers at the section editor's discretion. If the section editor informs you that your manuscript is suitable for publication, s/he will provide you with all the necessary details to move forward with the publication of your article and you will also be required to complete a publishing agreement form (provided by the editor upon acceptance).