📋 Full Editorial Workflow — 10 Stages
From submission to publication, every manuscript passes through 10 structured stages combining automated AI pre-screening with human editorial judgment and independent expert peer review. Average time to first decision: 6–8 weeks from submission.
01
Administrative
Submission Receipt & Administrative Check
The manuscript is received through the online submission portal. An automated confirmation is sent to the corresponding author within 1 hour, with a unique manuscript tracking number. The editorial assistant verifies: completeness of submission (all required files present), author details and faculty mentor confirmation, Research Training certificate number (if provided), and APC payment or waiver request status. Incomplete submissions are returned to authors within 24 hours with a checklist of missing items.
02
AI Pre-Screen
Automated Pre-Screening Pipeline
Six specialized AI agents analyse the manuscript in parallel across distinct evaluation domains (see AI System tab). This stage includes: plagiarism screening (similarity >20% triggers rejection); AI-generated content detection (flagged for editorial review, not automatic rejection); formatting compliance verification; citation integrity check; and preliminary scope and methodology assessment. Results are synthesised into a Composite Pre-Screen Report with an advisory score that informs — but does not determine — the editorial decision.
03
Editorial
Associate Editor Scope Assessment
The manuscript is assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant subject expertise. They assess whether the manuscript falls within REHS Journal's scope, is of sufficient intellectual merit to warrant full peer review, and meets the minimum standards expected of high school research. The Associate Editor reviews the AI Pre-Screen Report and makes a preliminary scope recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. This stage may result in a desk reject for clearly out-of-scope submissions.
04
Decision
Editor-in-Chief Desk Decision
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the AI Pre-Screen Report and the Associate Editor's scope assessment to make a desk decision: proceed to full peer review, or desk reject. Desk rejection is issued when the manuscript is clearly out of scope, does not meet minimum standards, or has failed integrity checks. Authors of desk-rejected manuscripts receive a brief decision letter with the primary reasons, within 5 business days of submission. Desk rejection rates help maintain reviewer workload and ensure only manuscripts with genuine merit proceed.
05
Human Review
Blind Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts advancing to full review are assigned to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. The AI Domain Knowledge Evaluator's subject classification is used to identify appropriate reviewers. Assignments are cross-checked against conflict-of-interest declarations. Double-blind protocol: authors are fully anonymised (names, institutions, acknowledgements redacted) before manuscripts are sent to reviewers; reviewers' identities are likewise concealed from authors throughout the process. Each reviewer receives: the blinded manuscript, the AI pre-screen summary (without scores), and the REHS standardized 12-criterion rubric.
06
Human Review
Independent Expert Review
Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript across all 12 criteria using the standardized rubric (1–10 scale per criterion with defined anchor descriptors). Reviewers must provide: (1) a numeric score for each criterion with mandatory justification; (2) a strengths section acknowledging what the paper does well; (3) a specific concerns section organized by major and minor issues; (4) constructive revision suggestions; (5) a preliminary recommendation with supporting rationale. Review deadline: 14 days from assignment, with one 7-day extension available.
07
Synthesis
Score Synthesis & Adjudication
The editorial system calculates a Weighted Composite Score (WCS) by averaging criterion scores across reviewers and applying criterion weightings. The Research Training Bonus is applied if verified. Discordant reviews — when two reviewer WCS values differ by more than 2.0 points — trigger a third reviewer or Associate Editor adjudication. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the aggregate report before issuing the formal decision letter.
08
Decision
Formal Decision Letter & Reviewer Feedback
Authors receive a comprehensive Decision Letter within 24 hours of editorial decision, including: the final decision; the composite score; combined reviewer feedback with strengths and specific numbered concerns; a revision checklist if applicable; the revision deadline; and the appeals procedure. REHS Journal provides constructive feedback for all submissions — even rejected manuscripts receive detailed reviewer comments to support the author's development.
09
Revision
Author Revision & Response
For Minor or Major Revisions, authors must submit: (1) a revised manuscript with all changes tracked; (2) a point-by-point Response Document addressing every numbered reviewer concern with line references in the revised manuscript. Partial responses are not accepted. Revision deadlines: 21 days for Minor Revisions; 45 days for Major Revisions. One extension is available upon request.
10
Publication
Production, Proofing & Publication
Upon final acceptance: copyediting, XML/PDF typesetting, DOI registration via CrossRef (10.XXXXX/rehs), author proof approval (48-hour window), then publication with open-access CC BY 4.0 license. Indexing metadata pushed to Google Scholar, CrossRef, and DOAJ. Authors receive a formal Publication Confirmation with the DOI, article URL, and a downloadable certificate of publication. Articles are typically live within 7–10 business days of final acceptance.
🤖 Multi-Agent AI Pre-Screening System
REHS Journal's AI pre-screening pipeline deploys six specialized review agents running in parallel. Each agent is an independent analytical system focused on a distinct evaluation domain. Their outputs are synthesised into a Composite Pre-Screen Report before any human reviewer sees the manuscript — ensuring consistent, bias-free first-pass evaluation.
🏗 System Architecture
The six agents operate as an orchestrated pipeline: each receives the full manuscript text, produces a structured sub-report, and passes it to a Synthesis Orchestrator which aggregates scores, resolves inter-agent conflicts, weights outputs by domain relevance, and generates the human-readable Composite Pre-Screen Report. The orchestrator also applies the Research Training Bonus at this stage if a verified certificate number was submitted.
Manuscript Input
→
6 Parallel Agents
→
Synthesis Orchestrator
→
Composite Report
Methodology
Analyst
Analyst
Integrity
Inspector
Inspector
Writing Quality
Assessor
Assessor
Domain Knowledge
Evaluator
Evaluator
Impact & Novelty
Scorer
Scorer
Citation & Format
Agent
Agent
⚙️ SYNTHESIS ORCHESTRATOR · Composite Score + Training Bonus
🤖 The Six Review Agents
Methodology Analyst
Research Design & Statistical Rigor
- Experimental design validity and control group appropriateness
- Sample size adequacy and statistical power
- Correct application of statistical tests
- Reproducibility and methodological transparency
- Appropriate handling of confounding variables
Weight in composite:
30%
Integrity Inspector
Plagiarism, AI Detection & Ethics
- Similarity analysis (>20% similarity triggers rejection)
- AI-generated content probability assessment
- Duplicate submission detection
- Ethics declaration completeness
- IRB approval and consent documentation
Weight in composite:
25%
Writing Quality Assessor
Academic Prose, Structure & Clarity
- Abstract structure and information completeness
- IMRAD compliance and section proportionality
- Clarity, precision, and academic register
- Logical argument flow and coherence
- Grammar, syntax, and terminology consistency
Weight in composite:
20%
Domain Knowledge Evaluator
Subject Expertise & Field Alignment
- Correct use of field-specific terminology
- Awareness of current state of the research field
- Appropriate literature coverage and currency
- Discipline classification for reviewer assignment
- Identification of interdisciplinary connections
Weight in composite:
20%
Impact & Novelty Scorer
Originality, Significance & Contribution
- Research question originality and distinctiveness
- Potential contribution to the field
- Practical or theoretical applications
- Interdisciplinary relevance
- Broader societal or scientific significance
Weight in composite:
5%
Citation & Format Agent
References, DOIs & Formatting
- APA 7th / ACS reference format compliance
- DOI validity check for all cited articles
- In-text citation completeness and accuracy
- Reference recency and absence of retracted sources
- Figure and table numbering consistency
Weight in composite:
5%
⚠️ AI System Limitations & Human Override
REHS Journal recognises that AI screening is a tool, not a judge. The AI pre-screen report is advisory only — it informs but never replaces human editorial and peer review judgment.
AI agents may misclassify highly interdisciplinary or novel research as scope-deficient because it does not pattern-match to established field conventions. Editors are trained to identify such cases and override AI classification before making desk-reject decisions.
Writing Quality scores may disadvantage non-native English speakers. REHS applies a language equity adjustment: if a manuscript scores below 6.0 on writing quality but above 7.5 on methodology and domain, it is flagged for language support rather than rejection.
The 20% similarity threshold applies to unattributed similarity. Properly quoted and cited material does not count toward the threshold. Common-knowledge scientific definitions and standard methodological descriptions are also excluded from similarity analysis.
AI-generated content detection is probabilistic, not deterministic. No manuscript is rejected solely on an AI detection flag. Flagged manuscripts are sent to the Editor-in-Chief and, if warranted, authors are asked to provide documentation of their research process.
📏 12-Point Evaluation Rubric
All manuscripts are scored on 12 standardized criteria by each human reviewer, using a 1–10 scale with defined anchor descriptors. The Weighted Composite Score (WCS) is computed using the percentage weights shown below.
📊 Full Evaluation Rubric with Weightings
| # | Criterion | What Reviewers Evaluate | Anchor Descriptors | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Research Question & ObjectivesClarity, specificity, testability | Is the research question clearly stated and appropriately scoped? Are objectives SMART? Is the hypothesis falsifiable? | 9–10: Precise, novel, testable 5–6: Adequate but vague 1–2: Absent or untestable | 12% |
| 2 | Literature Review & ContextualisationDepth, recency, relevance | Does the introduction situate the research within the existing field? Are seminal and recent works cited appropriately? | 9–10: Comprehensive, synthesized, current 5–6: Present but superficial 1–2: Absent or misleading | 8% |
| 3 | Methodology & Research DesignAppropriateness, rigor, reproducibility | Is the chosen methodology appropriate? Are procedures described in sufficient detail for replication? Are controls justified? | 9–10: Rigorous, reproducible, justified 5–6: Adequate with gaps 1–2: Inappropriate or absent | 15% |
| 4 | Data Collection & AnalysisQuality, appropriateness, transparency | Are data collection instruments valid? Are analytical methods correctly applied? Are assumptions stated and tested? | 9–10: Rigorous, transparent, appropriate 5–6: Functional but incomplete 1–2: Flawed or absent | 12% |
| 5 | Results PresentationClarity, completeness, accuracy | Are results reported clearly and completely? Do figures and tables present data accurately? Are statistical outcomes reported fully? | 9–10: Complete, accurate, clear 5–6: Adequate with missing elements 1–2: Incomplete or misleading | 10% |
| 6 | Discussion & InterpretationLogic, scope, contextualisation | Do conclusions follow logically from results? Are findings contextualised against existing literature? Are alternative explanations considered? | 9–10: Insightful, well-bounded 5–6: Present but overreaching 1–2: Unsupported or absent | 12% |
| 7 | Originality & NoveltyContribution, intellectual merit | Does the research make a genuine intellectual contribution? Is the question meaningfully distinct from prior work? | 9–10: Original, significant 5–6: Incremental but valid 1–2: No original contribution | 10% |
| 8 | Limitations & Future DirectionsSelf-awareness, specificity | Are limitations acknowledged honestly and specifically? Are future research directions proposed with scientific specificity? | 9–10: Specific, thoughtful, actionable 5–6: Present but generic 1–2: Absent or dismissive | 5% |
| 9 | Academic Writing QualityClarity, structure, register | Is the manuscript written in clear, precise academic prose? Is the argument structure logical? Is the abstract well-structured? | 9–10: Publication-ready prose 5–6: Comprehensible with revision 1–2: Unclear throughout | 5% |
| 10 | Ethical ComplianceApprovals, disclosures, consent | Is all required ethics documentation present? Are conflicts of interest disclosed? Are human subject consent procedures described? | 9–10: Complete, documented 5–6: Mostly compliant, minor gaps 1–2: Significant omissions | 5% |
| 11 | Citation Accuracy & FormatCompleteness, accuracy, style | Are all in-text citations matched in the reference list? Are DOIs accurate? Is reference format consistent? | 9–10: Complete, accurate, consistent 5–6: Minor inconsistencies 1–2: Significant errors throughout | 3% |
| 12 | Impact & Broader SignificancePractical value, field contribution | Does the paper articulate the broader significance of its findings? Are real-world applications discussed? | 9–10: Clear, compelling significance 5–6: Present but underdeveloped 1–2: Not addressed | 3% |
📐 Score Computation
Step 1 — Per-Criterion Average: For each of the 12 criteria, scores from all reviewers are averaged. If three reviewers are involved, the trimmed mean (excluding the most extreme score) is used.
Step 2 — Weighted Composite Score (WCS): Each criterion average is multiplied by its weight percentage. The 12 weighted values are summed to yield the WCS on a 0–10 scale.
Step 3 — Research Training Bonus: If a verified U&B Research Training certificate was submitted, the bonus is added to the WCS.
Step 4 — Decision Tier: The final Adjusted WCS determines the editorial decision per the thresholds in the Decisions tab.
WCS = Σ (Criterion_Averagei × Weighti)
Adjusted WCS = WCS + Research_Training_Bonus (if applicable)
Adjusted WCS = WCS + Research_Training_Bonus (if applicable)
🎓 Research Training Weighted Bonus
U&B Research Training
Certificate Advantage
Certificate Advantage
Recognizing demonstrated research methodology competency
+0.8
Max Bonus Points
Added to your Weighted Composite Score after human review — equivalent to raising your score by up to 0.8 on a 10-point scale
5
Criteria Enhanced
Bonus applied across five methodology-related criteria where trained researchers demonstrably outperform untrained peers
~8%
Score Lift
Average effective score improvement — enough to move a strong Major Revision into Minor Revision territory
How the Bonus is Applied
1
During manuscript submission, enter your U&B Research Training certificate number in the designated field on the submission form.
2
The editorial system automatically queries the U&B training registry. Verification checks: certificate validity, name match to corresponding author, and issue date prior to submission.
3
Upon successful verification, the Synthesis Orchestrator flags the manuscript and reserves the bonus until after human review scores are submitted — ensuring reviewers are not influenced by training status.
4
After human review scores are locked, the Synthesis Orchestrator applies the Training Bonus to the five qualifying criteria and recalculates the Adjusted WCS before the Editor-in-Chief issues a decision.
5
The Decision Letter notes that the Research Training Bonus was applied, though the specific bonus value is not disclosed to preserve score integrity.
Certificate numbers are cryptographically verified against the U&B training registry in real time. Fabricated certificate numbers will be detected and constitute a breach of publication ethics, resulting in immediate rejection and institution notification. Complete the free training at rehs.unb.college/research-training.html
🎓 Don't have your certificate yet? The U&B Research Training Program is completely free, self-paced, and takes approximately 6–8 hours to complete. All authors who complete the 7-module program and pass the final assessment receive a verifiable certificate number. Start the training module →
⚖️ Editorial Decisions, Appeals & Integrity
📊 Decision Thresholds
✅
Accept
8.0 – 10.0
The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or only minor typographical corrections. Production begins immediately upon APC payment confirmation. DOI assigned and article published within 7–10 business days.
⏱ Production: 7–10 business days
✏️
Minor Revisions
6.5 – 7.9
Small changes required — typically clarifications, additional references, or minor corrections to figures or tables. Authors have 21 days to resubmit. Revised manuscript checked by editor only (not re-reviewed by external reviewers).
⏱ Author deadline: 21 days
🔄
Major Revisions
5.0 – 6.4
Substantial changes required — additional experiments or data, expanded analysis, significant rewriting of key sections. Authors have 45 days to resubmit. Revised manuscript returns to the original reviewers for a consistency check.
⏱ Author deadline: 45 days
❌
Reject
Below 5.0
Manuscript does not meet publication standards. Authors receive full reviewer feedback and are encouraged to address fundamental issues before submitting to another journal. Rejected manuscripts may not be resubmitted to REHS Journal without explicit written permission from the Editor-in-Chief.
⏱ Full feedback provided within 24 hours
📣 Appeals Procedure
Authors who believe their manuscript was rejected unfairly — due to a factual error in the review, a clear conflict of interest, or a failure to follow REHS review procedures — may submit a formal appeal within 14 days of the decision letter.
1
Submit a written appeal to editor@rehs-journal.org with subject line "Appeal: [Manuscript ID]". The appeal must identify the specific factual errors or procedural violations — general disagreement with reviewer opinions does not constitute grounds for appeal.
2
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the appeal and the full review record within 10 business days. If a procedural error is confirmed, a new review is commissioned. If the appeal is about reviewer opinions, it is declined with explanation.
3
The appeal decision is final. REHS Journal follows COPE guidelines for handling editorial appeals and complaints throughout.
Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewer opinions or disappointment with the decision outcome will not be considered. Repeated or vexatious appeals may result in the author being barred from future submissions.
🏛 Publication Integrity & Post-Publication
Corrections
Factual errors corrected with published erratum
Retractions
COPE retraction guidelines followed
Expressions of Concern
Issued while investigations are ongoing
COPE Compliant
All integrity decisions follow COPE flowcharts
If significant errors, ethical violations, or data integrity concerns are discovered after publication, REHS Journal will investigate promptly following COPE guidelines. Possible outcomes include: published correction (erratum/corrigendum), expression of concern, or retraction. All retracted articles remain visible on the REHS website with a clearly marked retraction notice — they are not deleted from the record.
To report a concern about a published article, email ethics@rehs-journal.org. Reports are treated confidentially and acknowledged within 5 business days.
🤝 Competing Interests & Funding Disclosure
All authors must declare any financial or non-financial interests that could be perceived as influencing the research. This includes: funding sources, institutional affiliations with a financial interest in the research area, personal relationships with people who may benefit from the research, and membership of boards or advisory panels.
Funding sources must be named in a dedicated Funding section. The declaration "The authors received no specific funding for this work" is acceptable for unfunded student research and does not negatively affect editorial decisions.
⚡ Live Multi-Agent AI Pre-Screener
Paste your manuscript text below and run the full 6-agent parallel pre-screening pipeline — the same system applied to every REHS Journal submission. Results are generated locally in your browser; no data is sent to any server.