Peer Review Process

JSIP applies a double-blind peer review process to all manuscripts that pass the initial screening stage. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure the objectivity, independence, and integrity of the scholarly evaluation.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial team to ensure their alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, as well as compliance with publication ethics standards. The initial screening includes:

  • Compliance with the author guidelines, including manuscript format, article structure, and citation style;
  • Compliance with publication ethics, such as clarity of authorship and disclosure of conflicts of interest;
  • Similarity checking using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts with similarity levels exceeding acceptable thresholds may be rejected or returned to the authors for revision.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. The review is conducted under a double-blind system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other.

3. Review Process

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and its contribution to the advancement of knowledge. Review reports are submitted to the editor through the journal’s online management system (Open Journal Systems/OJS) or, under certain conditions, through other official communication channels such as email. All review outcomes are documented and managed by the editorial team.

4. Review Outcomes

Based on the review results, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Acceptance without revision
  • Acceptance with minor revisions
  • Acceptance with major revisions
  • Reject

5. Editorial Decision

The editorial team makes the final decision by considering the reviewers’ recommendations. If revisions are required, authors are requested to revise the manuscript in accordance with comments from both the reviewers and the editors. The communication of editorial decisions, revision requests, and submission of revised manuscripts is conducted through OJS or, under certain conditions, through other official communication channels such as email. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation before a final decision is made.

6. Author Revision

Authors are expected to respond to all reviewer comments in a systematic manner, revise the manuscript as required, and resubmit the revised version along with a response letter explaining the changes made.

7. Review Timeline

The peer review process generally takes between 2 and 8 weeks, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers.