Roan: Applied Journal on Empowerment is a double blind and peer reviewed international journal. Every paper submitted for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review proceeds in 9 steps with description as follows.

 

1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS), Do not accepts paper submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment
The submitted paper is first assessed by the editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable with journal’s focus and scope. The paper’s composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step. Every submitted paper which pass this step will be checked by turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.

3. Assessment by the Editor
The editor checks whether the paper is suitable for the journal, original enough, interesting and significant for publication. Otherwise, the paper may be rejected without further review.

4. Invitation to Reviewers
The managing editor sends invitations to individuals he believes will be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, affinity of research interests, and no consideration of conflicts of interest. The peer review process involves a community of experts in the field who are qualified and capable of conducting a sufficiently impartial review. Impartiality is also maintained by the double blind peer review used in this journal. That is, the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, otherwise the writer does not know the identity of the reviewer. Papers were sent to the two reviewers anonymously.

5. Responses to Invitations
Potential reviewers weigh invitations against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or reject. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask a potential reviewer for alternative reviewer suggestions, when he or she declines to review.

6. Review is Conducted
The reviewer allocates time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.

8. The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewers' comment are sent anonymously to corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses.

9. Final Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision, the editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers’ comments and instructions. After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor supplemented with a cover page containing a check list that declares points of correction and revision that have been made.

If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor. If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered to be accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and all are freely available as downloadable pdf files.