Peer -Review Process


The JJAS double-blind peer-review process is summarized in the following steps.

More documented detail about this process:

1. Submission of the Manuscript: 

The submitting/ corresponding author should submit the manuscript for the JJAS online submission system. No other routes of submission are accepted. The submitting/ corresponding author is responsible for the manuscript during the submission and peer-review process; and must ensure that all eligible co-authors, who qualify for the authorship criteria, have been included in the author list and have read and approved the submitted version of the manuscript.

2. Editorial Office Assessment:

The JJAS editorial office checks the manuscript’s style, composition, and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to ascertain it includes the required sections and stylizations. The office also ensures that the reviewer and the author are anonymous throughout the peer-review process. The title page that contains the research title, authors' names, affiliations, addresses, acknowledgments, conflict of interest statement, and any author-related information therein are separated from the submitted manuscript before being sent to the reviewer. At this point, the scientific quality of the manuscript is not reviewed.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board Members:

The Editor-in-Chief sends the submitted manuscript to the editorial member most acquainted with its scientific theme and reviews it blindly and comprehensively. The editor-in-chief and editorial member checks that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and is original and sufficiently of interest. If the manuscript successfully passes this step, the editorial member suggests 2-3 reviewers; if not, the manuscript is rejected without further review.

4. Invitation of Reviewers:

The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to potential reviewers he believes are appropriate for the manuscript. As responses are received, other invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required two admissions are accepted.

5. Response to Invitations: 

Potential reviewers consider the invitation based on their experience, conflict of interest, and availability. Then they accept or reject. If possible, upon refusal, they may also suggest alternative reviewers.

6. Review is Conducted:

The process of double blind-peer review generally involves an exchange between the Chief-in-Editor and the team of reviewers, also known as the referees. After the referees receive the manuscript from the editor, they read it thoroughly and comprehensively and provide individual critiques, usually within four weeks.


In their review critiques, the referees:

  • Comment on the validity of the science, identify scientific errors and evaluate the design, methodology, and statistics used.
  • Judge the significance by evaluating the importance and validity of the findings.
  • Determine the originality of the work based on how much it advances the scientific field.
  • Evaluate the appropriateness and recency of the references and identify missing or inaccurate references.
  • Recommend that the manuscript be published or rejected. Editors do not have to heed this recommendation, but in most cases do.
  • Then submit the review to the journal with the recommendations: to accept or reject or submit elsewhere or a revision request usually flagged as either major or minor before further reconsideration.


7. The Journal Evaluates the Reviews:

The Editor-in-Chief considers all reviews received before making a comprehensive decision. In the case of conflicting opinions, the Editor-in-Chief usually sends the manuscript to a third reviewer for confirmation.


8. The Decision is Communicated:

The Editor-in-Chief sends the decision through the journal electronic system to the submitting/ corresponding author, including any relevant comments of the editor and reviewers, in a completely blind manner.

9. The Final Step: 

If accepted, the manuscript is sent to production; if it is sent back blindly to the submitting/ corresponding author for either major or minor revision, the editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the manuscript. The modified version of the manuscript is then sent to the appointed reviewers unless they have opted out of further participation. This review step may proceed for three revision cycles to reach a decision. If the manuscript successfully passes this step, it is accepted, otherwise, rejected. However, if only very slight changes were requested, this follow-up review is done by the editors. The outcome of the review process is set on the electronic review page of the journal. The final decision is given to the Editor-in-Chief, who accredits this decision in a regular meeting with the JJAS editorial members. The submitting/ corresponding authors are informed about the outcome of their manuscripts through emails and the electronic review page of the journal.