Peer-review policy

Upon receipt by the editorial office, all manuscripts undergo an initial check for compliance with our Editorial Policies. You can see the checklist we use here. We will also perform a plagiarism check using iThenticate software. Papers will only be considered for further review if they meet these requirements.

All manuscripts submitted to Rhinology Online which meet these editorial requirements will then be reviewed by the Editor-In-Chief or a Handling Editor to determine whether the paper will be sent for peer-review. Peer-review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before a decision is made in regard to acceptable for publication. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether the manuscript should be published in their journal. Rhinology Online operates a single-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous. The benefit of single-blind peer review is that it is the traditional model of peer review that many reviewers are comfortable with, and it facilitates a dispassionate critique of a manuscript.

For articles transferred from Rhinology, the reviews carried out during the Rhinology peer review process will be evaluated, along with the authors’ response. In some cases this may be sufficient for the Editor to make a final decision. In other cases, articles will go through the Rhinology Online peer review process, in which case changes that authors have made to their paper based on the peer review feedback from Rhinology, and authors’ responses to the reviewers’ feedback points will be considered during the peer review process.

The Editor-in-Chief or nominated Handling Editor will invite appropriate reviewers (typically two in number), who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

1. Reports novel information or duplicates already published work
2. Is scientifically sound and coherent
3. Is sufficiently clear for publication
4. Adheres to ethical standards (including approval by an institutional review board)
5. Is free of conflicts of interest.

Based on the evaluations of these reviewers, the Editors will reach a decision to accept, accept with minor / major revisions, or reject based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. Papers authored by any members of the Editorial Board will be handled by an Editor who is unaffiliated with the authors or institutions, and the editorial office will monitor the progress of these papers through the system, to ensure there is no bias in the peer review process.

Authors will be notified of the Editors’ decision by email. If revisions are recommended feedback and clear pointers will be provided on how to address any issues. You can expect to receive notification of a first decision approx. 14 days after submission, based on the availability of suitable peer reviewers. Authors can check the status of their manuscript at any time in the manuscript submission system.

Authors may also check on the progress of their article, or appeal a decision to reject by contacting the editorial office,