1. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer-review process. Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.
2. Reviewers are selected by the Associate Editors and/or the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration their expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.
3. The review process considers factors such as relevance to the journal's scope, originality, scientific validity, methodological rigor, clarity, readability, and quality of presentation.
4. Possible editorial decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
5. Invitation to revise and resubmit a manuscript does not guarantee its eventual acceptance.
6. Rejected manuscripts are not normally reconsidered unless the Editor-in-Chief determines that exceptional circumstances apply.
7. Manuscripts must comply with all applicable legal and ethical requirements, including those concerning plagiarism, copyright, and research integrity.
8. Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal.
9. Previously published material must not be republished in substantially the same form without appropriate justification, disclosure, and permission where required.

1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is their own original work.
2. Authors must ensure that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under review or consideration by another journal at the time of submission.
3. Authors should not withdraw a manuscript after submission except for a valid and documented reason. Where withdrawal is requested after substantial editorial or peer-review work has been undertaken, the journal may apply its withdrawal policy.
4. All listed authors must have made substantial contributions to the research and must approve the final version of the manuscript.
5. The specific contribution of each author should be stated in an "Authors' Contributions" section, where required by the journal.
6. Authors must ensure that the data, analyses, and results presented in the manuscript are accurate and authentic.
7. Authors must disclose all relevant conflicts of interest and sources of funding or other support.
8. Authors must appropriately acknowledge and cite all sources used in the research and preparation of the manuscript, and must not manipulate citations for the purpose of increasing references to a particular author, journal, or publication.
9. Authors are responsible for obtaining all necessary ethical approvals, permissions, and informed consent required for their research.
10. Authors must cooperate with the journal if concerns are raised regarding the accuracy, integrity, authorship, or ethical conduct of their work.
11. Authors must promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief of any significant error identified in a published article and must cooperate with the journal in correcting the published record.
12. Authors must not engage in plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, redundant or duplicate publication, or other forms of research or publication misconduct.

1. Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and all related information as confidential and as privileged material.
2. Reviewers must decline a review assignment where a conflict of interest — arising from personal, professional, competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or organizations connected to the manuscript — could affect their impartiality.
3. Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally; personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.
4. Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful comments that help authors improve the quality, clarity, and scientific validity of their work.
5. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited by the authors, where such references are directly relevant to the manuscript.
6. Reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief of any substantial similarity, suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or potential overlap between the manuscript under review and other published work of which they are aware.
7. Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.
8. The identities of reviewers and authors are kept confidential in accordance with the journal's peer-review policy.
9. The existence and content of a submitted manuscript must not be disclosed to anyone other than authorized editorial staff and reviewers.
10. Reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting an invitation to review.

1. The Editor-in-Chief and designated editors hold responsibility and authority for editorial decisions concerning submitted manuscripts.
2. Editorial decisions should be based on the manuscript's scientific importance, originality, methodological quality, clarity, relevance, and suitability for the journal's scope.
3. Editors must evaluate all manuscripts fairly and objectively and must not discriminate against authors on the basis of personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or other irrelevant factors.
4. Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and preserve the anonymity of reviewers and authors in accordance with the journal's peer-review model.
5. Editors must manage manuscripts in a timely and professional manner.
6. Editors should balance the needs of authors and readers while maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the journal.
7. Editors are responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the academic record and should publish corrections, errata, expressions of concern, or retractions when necessary.
8. Editors should be aware of research funding sources and relevant disclosures that may affect the assessment of a manuscript.
9. Editors should not reverse previous editorial decisions without a clear and justifiable reason.
10. Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest; such manuscripts must be reassigned to another qualified editor.
11. Editors should investigate suspected misconduct in accordance with the journal's procedures and applicable COPE guidance.
12. Editors should base allegations of misconduct on available evidence and must give authors a fair opportunity to respond.
13. Editors should take appropriate action when ethical or research-integrity concerns arise, whether before or after publication.

1. Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must comply with the journal's ethical policies and relevant COPE guidelines.
2. Suspected cases of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, undeclared conflicts of interest, or other forms of research or publication misconduct will be investigated in accordance with the journal's procedures and applicable ethical guidelines.
3. The journal may use plagiarism-detection and other appropriate tools to assess the originality and integrity of submitted manuscripts.
4. Where serious misconduct is confirmed, the journal may reject the manuscript, issue a correction, publish an expression of concern, retract the article, or take other appropriate action.
5. The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal and for coordinating communication among co-authors regarding the manuscript.
6. Authors must not make substantial changes to an accepted manuscript without editorial approval and valid justification.
7. Authors and editors must cooperate openly and honestly in the publication of corrections, retractions, and other post-publication notices when required.

Publication Ethics, Research Integrity, and Intellectual Property

The Journal of Rescue and Relief respects intellectual property rights and is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Suspected breaches of publication ethics may result in appropriate action, including:

• Rejection of the manuscript and, where appropriate, other manuscripts submitted by the author(s);

• A 36-month ban on submitting manuscripts to the journal;

• Suspension from serving as an editor or reviewer.

Investigations

Suspected breaches of publication ethics, whether identified before or after publication, as well as concerns regarding research ethics, should be reported to the editorial office.

Complainants will be treated confidentially to the extent possible. The journal may request supporting data, images, or other relevant materials from the authors, consult editors or independent experts, and contact the authors’ institutions or employers when necessary to investigate concerns.

Corrections and Retractions

When errors are identified in a published article, the journal will assess the appropriate action and may consult the editors and the authors’ institution(s). Author errors may be corrected by a corrigendum, while publisher errors may be corrected by an erratum. Where errors substantially affect the conclusions of an article, or where there is evidence of research misconduct, the journal may issue a retraction or an expression of concern in accordance with the journal’s retraction policy. All authors will be given an opportunity to comment on the content of the notice.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may use the following procedures to appeal editorial decisions, raise complaints about failures in journal processes, such as excessive delays in handling manuscripts, or raise concerns about publication ethics.

Complaints should initially be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. Where the complaint concerns the journal’s processes or procedures, the complainant may also contact the Executive Manager of the Journal of Rescue and Relief.

Appealing an Editorial Decision, e.g., an Appeal against Rejection

If an author believes that a decision to reject a manuscript was not made in accordance with the journal’s policies and procedures, the author may appeal the decision by providing the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. The Editor-in-Chief will review the peer-review process followed for the manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief will consider the author’s arguments and the reviewers’ reports and determine whether:

• the decision to reject the manuscript should stand;

• an additional independent opinion is required; or

• the appeal should be considered further.

The complainant will be informed of the decision and, where appropriate, provided with an explanation. Decisions on appeals are final. New submissions will normally take priority over appeals.

Complaints about Journal Processes, e.g., Time Taken to Review a Manuscript

The Editor-in-Chief, together with the Executive Manager of the Journal of Rescue and Relief, will investigate complaints concerning the journal’s processes and procedures. The complainant will be provided with appropriate feedback, and relevant feedback may be used to improve the journal’s processes and procedures.

Complaints about Publication Ethics, e.g., Authors’ or Reviewers’ Conduct

The Editor-in-Chief will handle complaints concerning publication ethics in accordance with relevant guidelines and flowcharts published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Editor-in-Chief may determine an appropriate course of action and will provide appropriate feedback to the complainant.

Where a complaint cannot be resolved through the journal’s internal procedures, the complainant may seek further advice from COPE, where applicable and in accordance with COPE’s procedures.

Data and Reproducibility
The journal has policies on data availability and encourages the use of relevant reporting guidelines and the registration of clinical trials and other study designs, in accordance with standard practices in the relevant discipline.