Peer Review Policy
Understanding the double-blind evaluation process at JACOTECH
Double-Blind Peer Review
JACOTECH adheres to a strict Double-Blind Peer Review model to ensure unbiased, objective, and high-quality evaluation of all submissions. In this process, both the reviewer and the author identities remain completely anonymous. Referees are chosen based on their expertise, academic record, and objectivity.
Anonymity Assurance
Authors must submit anonymized manuscripts with all identifying details, institutions, and self-citations removed from the body of the paper to ensure complete neutrality during evaluation.
Review Workflow
Initial Editorial Triage
Every submission is screened by the Editor-in-Chief for plagiarism (using automated checkers), scope matching, and structural compliance. Papers failing triage are desk-rejected within 3–5 days.
Referee Assignment
Suitable manuscripts are assigned to an Associate Editor, who invites at least two independent expert reviewers within the specific domain. Reviewers have 14–21 days to complete their review.
Independent Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate the paper's original contribution, experimental soundness, mathematical validity, language structure, and references. They provide detailed feedback and recommend one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Editorial Decision
The Associate Editor synthesizes the referee reports and makes a recommendation. The Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision. If revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript and response letter.
Ethical Duties of Reviewers
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shared or discussed with others.
- Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline reviewing papers where they have competing financial, professional, or personal connections.