JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Peer review and editorial process
Independent evaluation, clear decisions and a transparent review pathway.
- 01
Initial screening
2–3 business days - 02
Reviewer assignment
2–5 days - 03
External review
Typically 7–14 days - 04
First decision
Target 14–21 days
These are targets, not guaranteed deadlines. The first-decision target runs from submission; the stages are not a promise of a cumulative schedule.
Double-blind evaluation
JSRT uses double-blind peer review. The target initial screening time is 2–3 business days; reviewer assignment is targeted within 2–5 days; typical external review takes 7–14 days; and the target first decision is 14–21 days from submission. These are targets, not guarantees. Reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revisions and ethical checks can extend the process.
Initial screening
The editorial office checks scope, basic reporting, required files, originality and ethical documentation. A manuscript may be returned for clarification or declined before external review when it does not meet the journal’s requirements.
Reviewer selection
Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and asked to disclose conflicts of interest. Authors and reviewers are not ordinarily identified to one another during review. Editors oversee confidentiality and may seek further specialist advice when needed.
Decision and revision
Reviewers advise; editors decide. Decisions may request revision, accept or decline the manuscript. Authors should answer comments point by point and clearly identify changes. Revised work may return to reviewers. An invitation to revise is not a promise of acceptance.
Editorial independence
Scientific decisions are based on scope, soundness, originality, ethics and the evidence presented. APC handling follows acceptance. An editor with a relevant competing interest should not control the decision on that manuscript.
Delays and appeals
Contact the editorial office with your manuscript identifier for a status update. Explain any request for additional revision time. Appeals should identify a factual or procedural concern and provide supporting evidence; a different outcome is not guaranteed.