Peer Review Process
The JSSAL is a refereed journal and has a double-blind review. Any manuscript submitted for consideration in publication in the JSSAL is reviewed by at least two international reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.
The submission is first reviewed by the editorial team. This initial review is completed in two weeks. If the submission passes the initial review, then the blind review takes about two months.
The template is not compulsory for articles submitted for review. The template can be used for accepted papers.
Reviewing Procedure
Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis:
- The originality of its contribution to the field of scholarly publishing;
- The soundness of its theory and methodology gave the topic;
- The coherence of its analysis;
- Its ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style).
Therefore, the manuscript submission and peer review process are broken down into the following steps:
- The author submits a manuscript.
- The editor pre-review the article.
- The Editor assigns Reviewers to the manuscript.
- The Reviewers review the manuscript.
- The Editor drafts a decision to be sent to the Author.
Note: Review process for the submitted papers in this journal is a double-blind peer review.
Peer review
The submitted papers are subject to a peer-review process. The purpose of peer review is to assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through editorial communications with the author; this may also assist the author in improving the paper.
A manuscript goes through the peer review process - Double-blind peer review. Double-blind peer review means that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of the reviewers. There are at least two reviewers. The typical period of time allowed for reviews is 6 weeks. Note: It can be modified during the editorial process.
The choice of reviewers is at the editors' discretion. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they must not be from the authors' own institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.
Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding sources for the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor without delay.
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Authors submit manuscripts to the Editorial Office via the online system. The acknowledgment letter should be sent to the author to confirm the receipt of the manuscript. The Chief Editor first reviews manuscripts. Chief Editor is assisted by Section Editors (who could also be Co- or Associate Editors). The Editor assigns a Section Editor to see the manuscript through the complete review process and return it with a recommendation or decision. The manuscript is checked to see if it meets the scope of the Journal and its formal requirements. If it is incorrect or unsuitable, the author should be informed, and the manuscript– direct rejected. Manuscripts that are not suitable for publication in the Journal are rejected. A Rejection letter is sent to the author stating the reason for rejection. If the manuscript conforms to the aims and scope of the Journal and formally abides by the Instructions to Authors, it is sent out for review. Depending on the type of paper, it could be accepted immediately for publication by the Chief Editor.
Check that the manuscript has been written and styled in accordance with the Journal style, that it carries an abstract (if applicable), keywords, correct reference system, etc., and that the correct blinding system has been used. If anything is missing, ask the author to complete it before the manuscript is sent out for review.
The manuscript is sent out for review. The reviewer reads and evaluates the manuscript and eventually sends a review report to the Chief Editor. The time for review can be set to 4-6 weeks, depending on the discipline. Ensure to provide the reviewer with clear instructions for the work, e.g., outlined in the form of a Review report or a number of questions to be considered.
Based on the reviewers’ comments, the Chief Editor decides to:
- Accept the manuscript without further revision
- Accept after revision
- Ask the authors to resubmit
- Reject
An acceptance letter is sent to the author, and the final manuscript is forwarded to production. Sometimes, the authors are requested to revise in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit the updated version of their manuscript to the Chief Editor. The time for review can be set to 2-8 weeks, depending on the discipline and type of additional data, information, or argument required. The authors are requested to make substantial revisions to their manuscripts and resubmit for a new evaluation. A rejection letter is sent to the author, and the manuscript is archived. Reviewers might be informed about the decision.
After review, the manuscript goes to the Copy Editor, who will correct the manuscript concerning the correct referencing system in accordance with the journal style and layout. When Copy Editor finishes his/her work, the manuscript will be sent to the Layout editor.
The Layout Editor is responsible for structuring the original manuscript, including figures and tables, into an article, activating necessary links, and preparing the manuscript in various formats, in our case, PDF and HTML format. When the Layout Editor finishes his/her job, the manuscript will be sent to Proof Editor.
Proof Editor confirms that the manuscript has gone through all the stages and can be published.
All of the reviewers of a paper act independently, and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor may assign additional reviewers.
The Editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or the quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned.
Important Notes:
- The journal’s content is subjected to blind peer review.
- The type of review is: Abstracted and Indexed, Refereed, and Peer-reviewed.
- Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ experts in the field.
- Judgments of the manuscripts should be objective.
- Reviewers should have no conflict of interest.
- Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially prior to their publication.
