URF Publishers | Journals


The UR Forum Publishers' Journals carefully agrees to the ethical equity and morals, and would similarly direct a legitimate review as needed depending on the situation. The journal ensures that the editors' decisions are not influenced by recreating or advancing.

Editors and reviewers subject all research articles, review articles, case reports, and case series published in our journals to a rigorous peer review process. We only publish articles that have been approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in the subject matter.

Peer Review Policy

Because the review process is critical to maintaining the publication's standards, all types of submitted articles, including review articles, are subjected to double blind peer-review by the articles' respective subject experts. It helps an editor decide whether or not to publish an article and also allows the author to improve the manuscript.

We always request that reviewers and editors be more prompt while also being critical of the manuscript under consideration. To avoid delays in the review process, specific reviewers will be reminded on a regular basis. To meet the most stringent criteria for publication in UR Forum Journals, a manuscript should be exemplary in terms of work novelty and significant results, with clearly strong conclusions.

All manuscripts submitted are reviewed by the editorial staff. Papers that do not meet our criteria for scientific merit and overall style are rejected without review to save time for authors and peer reviewers. Informal advice from subject matter experts is also used to inform these editorial decisions. Manuscripts are formally sent to two ad hoc reviewers following editorial screening. Author identities (including the author(s) name, address/affiliation, country, phone/fax, and email) are removed from the manuscript during the review process. Before sending the manuscript to reviewers, any information in the Acknowledgement and Declaration of Conflict of Interest that reveals author identity is removed from the manuscript.

To ensure fair analysis and consideration of the reviewer's expertise in the subject, the identities of the reviewers are concealed from other reviewers. We prefer that the reviewers remain anonymous to one another during and after the review process. We ask that reviewers refrain from identifying themselves to the authors.

Finally, based on the comments of the reviewers, the editors make the following decisions: Accept, with or without editorial revisions; Requires Minor revisions (address specific concerns before final decision is made); Requires Major revisions (address specific concerns before final decision is made); Reject on grounds of plagiarism (specific reasons)

The review reports are sent to the authors without revealing the identity of the reviewers. The editor makes Accept or Reject decisions after receiving the author(s) revised manuscript that addresses the reviewer's or editor's comments. Only an editor has the authority to press the "Accept" or "Reject" buttons. When a manuscript is accepted, the author(s) receive an Acceptance Certificate, and the manuscripts are processed for galley proof before publication.

Different peer review processes may be used by different journals. Our guide to understanding peer review covers a variety of peer review models, including:

peer review that is conducted in a single-blind manner

Peer review that is double-blind

Peer review that is open

Every URF journal includes a statement on its homepage that describes the journal's peer review model. In general, comments from at least two independent experts are required to ensure an accurate assessment of the article.

The Editor will consider the details of the comments as well as the overall recommendations of the peer reviewers when making a decision, but the ultimate responsibility for acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor.

Editors will assign any submissions they cannot handle (e.g., if they are the author of an article submitted to their own journal) to a member of the Editorial Board or a guest editor in accordance with COPE recommendations on ethical editing for new Editors.

The majority of UR Forum journals do not allow you to recommend peer reviewers. If you wish to suggest potential reviewers, please include this information in the covering letter; however, the Editors will decide whether or not to consider these reviewers. Giving false information about potential reviewers may result in the article being rejected.

Confidentiality of peer review

It is mandatory to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the peer review and editorial decision-making processes at all stages while adhering to data protection regulations. Before submitting their report to the journal, the invited reviewer should declare any competing interests. If they want to include a colleague as a co-reviewer for an article, they should ask the journal editorial office first before sharing the manuscript, and include their names, affiliation, and any relevant competing interests in the comments for Editors section when they return their report.

The submitted manuscript, author, reviewer, and any other person involved will be treated in confidence during the investigation of an ethical query. During the course of an investigation, the Editor may be required to share information with third parties such as the ethics committee and/or the authors' institution.

Early-career researchers are encouraged to participate in the peer review process by the UR Forum. If you need assistance with your review, please do not hesitate to contact the journal's Editorial Office. We would recommend new reviewers to take advantage of training materials such as through the URF Academy, and would recommend that you read our blogs on ‘Tips for good practice in peer review’ and ‘What makes a good or a bad peer review?’

If you have a question or feedback on how we can improve the reviewing experience, please contact us or the journal that invited you - we are happy to assist.

Tips for good practice in peer review

Respond quickly to a review request, whether accepting or declining; if declining, use the opportunity to recommend other early career researchers (ECRs) as alternative reviewers (who may not be on the editor's radar).

Consider your target audience: your comments should both assist the Editor in making a decision and provide constructive feedback to the authors.

Priority should be given to methodology and data. If the data, methodology, and analysis are appropriate and sound, problems with interpretation and presentation are usually easily resolved.

Examine the manuscript in front of you; resist the urge to have the authors write the paper that you would have written instead.

Consider whether all of the information required to replicate the authors' study and interpret their findings is available. Many journals now request that all data be made available – double-check this if applicable.

Reviewers can add significant value by ensuring that the paper is presented clearly and appropriately. For example, is the manuscript well-written, does the abstract adequately summarise the study, and are the figures a fair and clear representation of the findings?

It is not the reviewer’s role to ‘edit’ the language or presentation, but you should make suggestions to the author to improve readability, and flag to the editor if the quality of the language makes it too difficult to understand the scientific content.

Don't just concentrate on the paper's content; notify the Editor of any concerns about ethics and research integrity, data availability, transparency, and so on.

Please notify the editor if there are any aspects that you do not feel qualified to evaluate.

Before submitting your review, please read it thoroughly. Check that it is clear and constructive, that it does not contain jargon or potentially confusing terminology, and that it is polite and professional. Unless you are willing to give the authors your name, make sure that any attachments do not include your personal information.

Finally, remember the Golden Rule (in peer review as in all things): review others as you want to be reviewed yourself.

What makes a good or a bad peer review? Tips for excelling at reviewing

'You've accepted your first peer review request, read the paper thoroughly, and are now staring at a blank computer screen, wondering what your peer review should look like. here are some pointers from the URF team.

What does a good peer review look like?

1. Begin by providing a (very) brief summary of the paper. This is a good practise exercise for both reviewers and authors. If you struggle to summarise what the paper is about, that suggests the authors need to improve the clarity of their writing. It also informs the authors of what a reader took away from their paper – which may or may not have been what they intended!

2. Next, provide an overview of your thoughts on the paper to the Editor. You will typically have to provide a recommendation (e.g. accept, revise or reject), but in the review itself you should give a summary of your reasons for this recommendation.

3. The remainder of your review should include specific comments about the manuscript. This section will be most useful to Editors and authors if it is structured in some way. Many reviewers begin with the major issues and then move on to the minor issues. Major comments would be those which need to be addressed before the paper is publishable and/or which will take substantial work to resolve – such as concerns with the methodology or the authors’ interpretation of results. Minor comments could be suggestions for revisions that aren't necessarily necessary to make the paper publishable, such as additional literature to include or cosmetic changes.

4. Keep in mind that you have two audiences to consider: the Editor and the authors. Authors must understand what worked well in their paper and where improvements could be made. The Editor wants to know if you believe the manuscript is publishable. Bear in mind that different journals have different criteria for what makes a paper publishable – this information should be accessible on the journal webpage, or you might have been sent guidance to help with this when you accepted the invitation to review.

5. Your review should be clear, constructive and consistent. Clarity is important because authors will not be able to respond to your concerns if they don’t fully understand what they are. Reviews are most helpful if they don’t just criticise, but also make constructive suggestions for how concerns may be resolved.

Your overall recommendation should be consistent with your comments. There is likely to be an opportunity to provide confidential comments to the Editor to provide further context or justification for your recommendation, but don’t include comments here that are completely different from the main messages of your review. The Editor needs to be able to justify their final decision to the authors using the reviewer comments as part of their evidence.

6. Don’t be afraid to highlight good things about the paper – a good review does not just criticise but also highlights what the authors have done well.

7. Your review should always be polite; it is unprofessional to use derogatory language or take a harsh or sarcastic tone (and remember that even if reviewer names are blinded to authors, the Editor knows who you are…). Write the review in a tone you would be happy to receive.

What does a bad review look like?

1. One who uses derogatory or impolite language.

2. An unstructured stream of consciousness in which many concerns are listed but no indication is given as to which are the most serious.

3. One with too few comments for the Editor to understand what you liked or disliked about the paper.

4. One that fails to justify its recommendation or makes a recommendation that is not supported by the comments. The Editor wants to know how you arrived at your recommendation.

5. One that insists on unnecessary revisions – perhaps another seven experiments would improve the paper, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the paper you have in front of you is publishable. You should feel free to suggest additional work that you believe would improve the paper, but don't insist on it unless the paper in front of you isn't publishable without it.

Sixth, one who makes unreasonable demands. Consider how the authors will respond to your concerns, and only suggest changes that are feasible.

When peer reviewing works well, it provides an opportunity to improve the quality of published research and is extremely beneficial to the research process. I hope these suggestions help make the process as efficient (and painless!) as possible.

Withdrawal Policy

An author may wish to withdraw a manuscript after it has been submitted on occasion. The author has complete authority to alter one's point of view. An author has the right to withdraw an article for free if it is withdrawn within 7 days of its initial submission. Once the article has been acknowledged/accepted in the peer review process, the author must pay 50% of the charges to withdraw the manuscript (for the time and resources used).

We offer a flat fee submission structure (depending on the journal) on the acceptance of a peer-reviewed article, which covers a portion of the entire publication pathway, as do other open access journals (the article processing charge). The procedure includes our assistance, maintenance, submission and peer review evaluation, international editing, publication and submission to global indexing and tracking organisations, and archiving to allow access to the entire article and related supplementary reports. We must also ensure sufficient investment to secure a symbiotic and sustainable model that is legally, ethically, and financially sound.

To avoid unnecessary manuscript withdrawals, UR Forum Publisher has issued the accompanying withdrawal policy. Before sending a request for withdrawal, the corresponding author or co-authors must acknowledge the following declarations.

Before submitting the manuscript, all authors, including the corresponding and co-authors, sought to confirm the number of authors, authorship, and approval and integrity of the manuscript. If there are any disagreements, the concerns of all authors must be addressed before submitting the manuscript for publication in the journal.

Before sending/submitting manuscripts to UR Forum Publishers journals, academic research students or researchers should obtain permission from their guides and professors or the appropriate authority.

The authors attempted to adhere to publication ethics. In the case of a previously published article, the manuscript should be properly withdrawn from any previous publisher before submitting to our journals. It is illegal to withdraw a manuscript from a journal because it has been accepted by another.

Before submitting a manuscript, authors should ensure that the facts and data presented are correct and error-free. Before submitting the articles, the corresponding author and all co-authors should agree on the publication of the articles in a specific journal.

Unethical Withdrawal

If an author decides to withdraw a manuscript after it has been published, the authors' article publication fees will not be refunded.

Unless there are compelling reasons, withdrawing a submitted manuscript at an advanced stage of the editorial process, such as when peer reviews are nearing completion, is unacceptable.

If the authors do not respond to the editorial office's communication, even after multiple reminders, at any stage of the publication process, UR Forum Publisher Journals holds all authority and rights to disclose the authors' conduct and the content of the manuscript without further approval from the authors, and the authors bear the onus of any consequences arising from it.

Manuscript withdrawal will be permitted only for the most compelling and unavoidable of reasons. to withdraw an article, authors must submit to the Editorial Office a “Article Withdrawal Form” signed by all authors and referencing the reason for withdrawal. The withdrawal form is available from the editorial office of the journal. Authors should not assume that their manuscript has been withdrawn unless they receive proper notification from the editorial office.

If a manuscript has been reviewed for more than six months, the author may withdraw it without incurring any fees.

Manuscript Withdrawal Charges

The author(s) will not be charged a withdrawal penalty if they request a withdrawal of their manuscript within 7 days of submission.

If an author(s) requests a withdrawal of a manuscript after the initiation or completion of the peer review process, or during the production stage (Early Release or Ahead of Publishing), or after online publication, the author(s) must pay a withdrawal charge before the request will be processed.

The UR Forum Publisher Journal Editorial Office will send the corresponding author a formal letter of manuscript withdrawal. Manuscript withdrawal is permitted only after the withdrawal penalty has been paid in full to the UR Forum Publisher Editorial Office.

We declare that withdrawal charges will be applied in accordance with the policy in the event of a withdrawal.

Publishing ethics and policies

UR Forum is committed to promoting the highest ethical publication practices across all our journals. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated fully, as outlined on the relevant pages below, and as per the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Complaints against a journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher should be directed to the editorial office (contact details are provided on each journal homepage) or alternatively [email protected]

Prior submission and redundant publication

URF journals only accept articles that have never been published before. Furthermore, an author is not permitted to submit a manuscript (or manuscripts describing essentially the same matter) to more than one journal at the same time.

It is critical that research work is only published once. If it is published more than once, the appearance that one study has been replicated can unjustifiably weight the scientific literature. It could also mean that the study is entered twice into a meta-analysis, for example, or cause issues in systems that use the number of publications to assess an individual's or institute's research output.

There may be instances where previously published work can be included in summary form, but this must be made clear to the editor at the time of submission. The publication of an abstract at a meeting does not preclude the full article from being submitted to a UR Forum journal later. Submissions that contain material that was previously part of a PhD or other academic thesis that was published in accordance with the requirements of the institution awarding the qualification may also be considered.

Redundant publication, duplicate publication, and text recycling are instances in which authors reproduce verbatim content from their previous publications.

It is not acceptable to duplicate a published article or have significant overlap/redundancy with another published article. When this is discovered, we will follow COPE guidelines and consider publishing a notice of redundant publication.

Minor overlap or redundancy is sometimes unavoidable. This must always be reported transparently, with proper attribution and in accordance with copyright requirements.

Some text recycling in the background/introduction/methods section of a research article may be acceptable. Overlap in the results and conclusions sections, on the other hand, is unlikely to be acceptable.

It will not be acceptable in review articles if text is recycled from an earlier publication without any further novel development of previously published opinions or ideas, or if they are presented as novel without any reference to previous publications.


The Office of Research Integrity defines plagiarism as follows:

Plagiarism includes both intellectual property theft or misappropriation and substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work. It excludes authorship and credit disputes. The unauthorised use of ideas or unique methods obtained through a privileged communication, such as a grant or manuscript review, is considered intellectual property theft or misappropriation.

Research ethics

Articles will be accepted based on scientific merit and only if the editors believe they are ethically sound.

Referees are asked to express any ethical concerns they have about human studies, the potential for animal misuse or maltreatment, and conservation or environmental issues.

Human subjects

Articles will be accepted based on scientific merit and only if the editors believe they are ethically sound.

Referees are asked to express any ethical concerns they have about human studies, the potential for animal misuse or maltreatment, and conservation or environmental issues.

Animal subjects

UR Forum believes that all research should be conducted with a strong emphasis on animal welfare. Authors should include information about any animals used in their study, such as the species, number, sex, age, weight, housing conditions, welfare, animal training, and the fate of the animals at the end of the experiment, as well as relevant details of steps taken to alleviate suffering. These details should be included in the article's Methods section.

Animal-related articles will be accepted only if the procedures used are clearly described and all experiments were carried out in accordance with relevant international guidelines and regulations. They must also adhere to all institutional guidelines as well as the legal requirements of the country in which the work was performed.

At the end of the article, a statement identifying the institutional and/or licencing committee that approved the experiments (including the number(s) of the licence/approval(s) received) must be included.

Any negative effects of the work on ecosystems, populations, or individual organisms must be balanced against the potential gains in knowledge and its practical applications.

The journals of UR Forum reserve the right to request all ethical documentation related to their studies and to contact the authors' institutions for additional information.

Comment and reply policy

A comment draws attention to an error in a journal article or expresses an opposing viewpoint. It is frequently a critique, offering corrections or new analyses. However, if factual errors that affect the accuracy of the published record are discovered, a corrigendum or erratum may be published instead. To address ethical issues, a comment should not be used; instead, appropriate COPE guidelines should be used.

A comment is published in an issue after the primary article and can be proposed by any reader within three months of the initial article's online publication. It will be published at the Editor's discretion. The comment is usually peer-reviewed by a referee from the original article and another impartial referee. At the same time, it is shared with the original article's corresponding author. If accepted, it is held to allow the original authors to respond.

The response will be peer-reviewed as well. The response is published in the same issue as the comment. Normally, each round of comment and response is limited to one round.