PEER REVIEW PROCESS

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to JISPAR undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Office or a designated editor.

The screening assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope, follows the submission requirements, demonstrates basic scholarly quality, and contains the required documents and declarations.

Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical revisions or declined before peer review if they fall outside the journal's scope or do not meet the journal's minimum requirements.

2. Review Model

JISPAR uses a single-blind peer review process. Reviewers are informed of the authors' identities, while reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors during the review process.

The journal ordinarily assigns at least one qualified reviewer to each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review. An additional reviewer may be invited when the initial reports conflict, further expertise is required, or the editor considers an additional assessment necessary.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on relevant subject expertise, scholarly experience, and the absence of significant conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should have an appropriate record of scholarly work in a relevant field. The editor is responsible for assessing whether a reviewer has sufficient expertise for the manuscript under consideration.

Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline an assignment if they cannot provide an impartial assessment.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers may assess the following aspects of a manuscript:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

  • Originality and contribution to existing scholarship.

  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives.

  • Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework.

  • Soundness and transparency of the methodology.

  • Quality of analysis and interpretation.

  • Consistency between evidence, findings, and conclusions.

  • Use of relevant literature and appropriate references.

  • Organization, clarity, and academic writing quality.

  • Compliance with relevant research ethics requirements.

5. Review Timeline

JISPAR aims to receive reviewer reports within two weeks of the review assignment being accepted.

This is a target rather than a guarantee. The actual review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need to appoint additional reviewers.

If a delay occurs, the editor may send a reminder, extend the deadline, or invite another reviewer.

6. Editorial Decisions

Based on the review reports and the editor's independent assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept.

  • Accept subject to minor revisions.

  • Revise and resubmit for further evaluation.

  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the outcome. The editor is responsible for making the final decision based on the evidence, the manuscript's quality, and the journal's standards.

7. Conflicting Review Reports

When reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor evaluates the reasoning and evidence provided in each report. The editor may request clarification, invite an additional reviewer, or make a decision based on the available assessments.

An additional reviewer is not automatically required in every disagreement; the decision depends on whether further expert assessment is necessary.

8. Revisions and Final Assessment

Authors must respond to reviewer comments and identify the changes made to the manuscript. Where a suggestion is not adopted, authors should provide a reasoned explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions.

Acceptance is confirmed only by an authorized editor after the required evaluation and revisions have been completed.

9. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must disclose relevant conflicts of interest. Reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal advantage.

Concerns about plagiarism, research misconduct, or other ethical issues must be reported to the editor for assessment in accordance with JISPAR's Publication Ethics policy.