Peer Review Process

JSKAR uses a single-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are provided with the authors' identities, while reviewers' identities remain confidential to the authors through the standard peer-review process.

The purpose of peer review is to provide an independent assessment of the methodological quality, analytical rigor, transparency, interpretation, and scholarly contribution of each manuscript.

Overview of the Review Process

JSKAR follows a structured editorial and peer-review process designed to support fairness, independence, transparency, and appropriate subject-area expertise.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening
    Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial office for basic completeness, suitability for the journal, adherence to submission requirements, and potential ethical or research-integrity concerns.
  2. Academic Editor Assignment
    Manuscripts considered potentially suitable for peer review are assigned to an Academic Editor with relevant subject-area expertise.
  3. Reviewer Selection
    The Academic Editor identifies and invites appropriate independent reviewers. At least two expert reviewers normally evaluate research articles.
  4. Peer Review
    Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide structured feedback to assist the Academic Editor in reaching an editorial decision.
  5. Editorial Assessment
    The Academic Editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses where applicable, and the overall quality of the research before making an editorial recommendation or decision.
  6. Revision
    Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond systematically to reviewer and editorial comments and provide a clear description of changes made.
  7. Final Editorial Decision
    The final decision is made in accordance with JSKAR's editorial policies and is based on the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript and the available peer-review evidence.

Number of Reviewers

At least two independent expert reviewers normally evaluate research articles. The Academic Editor may seek additional reviews when necessary, including when reviewer recommendations substantially disagree or when specialized expertise is required.

The number of reviewers may vary for certain article types or editorial circumstances where appropriate.

Interdisciplinary Perspective Review

JSKAR recognizes that interdisciplinary research may benefit from perspectives beyond the immediate specialty of a manuscript.

Where appropriate, the Academic Editor may invite an additional Interdisciplinary Perspective Reviewer to provide a broader assessment of the manuscript's clarity, accessibility, interdisciplinary relevance, and potential significance beyond its primary disciplinary audience.

This optional review is intended to complement, rather than replace, the formal expert peer-review process.

An Interdisciplinary Perspective Reviewer may consider:

  • Clarity and accessibility — Is the research understandable to readers outside the immediate specialty?
  • Interdisciplinary relevance — Does the manuscript communicate its broader connections effectively?
  • Broader significance — Could the findings or approach be relevant to researchers or practitioners in related fields?
  • Integration — Are different disciplinary perspectives appropriately connected?
  • Communication of evidence — Are the main findings and implications presented clearly?

The Interdisciplinary Perspective Review is not required for every manuscript and does not replace the journal's normal requirement for independent expert peer review. The Academic Editor determines whether this additional perspective would add value to the evaluation of a particular submission.

Important: The Interdisciplinary Perspective Reviewer does not replace the formal expert reviewers and does not independently determine the editorial decision. Their comments are considered by the Academic Editor as an additional perspective during the editorial assessment.

What Do Reviewers Evaluate?

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript according to the nature of the research and the claims being made. Key considerations may include:

  • Research question and objectives — Are they clear and appropriately defined?
  • Methodological quality — Are the methods appropriate for the research question?
  • Analytical rigor — Are the analyses appropriate, clearly described, and adequately supported?
  • Data and evidence — Are the data, sources, and evidence appropriate and sufficiently documented?
  • Transparency — Is the research reported with sufficient detail to allow appropriate assessment and, where possible, reproduction?
  • Interpretation — Are the conclusions supported by the results and evidence?
  • Scholarly contribution — Does the manuscript provide a meaningful contribution to knowledge, understanding, methodology, or practice?
  • Presentation — Is the manuscript sufficiently clear, coherent, and organized for scholarly communication?

Novelty and perceived impact are not primary determinants of editorial quality. A manuscript does not need to present a revolutionary finding to be considered publishable if it is methodologically sound, analytically rigorous, transparent, appropriately interpreted, and makes a meaningful scholarly contribution.

Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are expected to provide independent and objective assessments. Individuals should decline an invitation when they have a conflict of interest or another relationship that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Current or recent collaboration with the authors
  • Institutional or professional relationships that could affect impartiality
  • Personal relationships or disputes
  • Financial or commercial interests
  • Other circumstances that could create a perceived or actual conflict

Reviewers should disclose relevant conflicts to the Academic Editor and should not use their access to unpublished manuscripts for personal, professional, or other purposes.

Reviewer Confidentiality

JSKAR uses single-blind peer review. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors through the standard peer-review process.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and associated materials as confidential. Unpublished information obtained through peer review must not be shared, used for personal advantage, or communicated to others without appropriate authorization.

Reviewer Responsibilities

JSKAR expects reviewers to:

  • Provide an objective and constructive assessment
  • Identify important methodological or analytical concerns
  • Comment on whether conclusions are supported by the evidence
  • Identify relevant limitations where appropriate
  • Maintain confidentiality
  • Declare potential conflicts of interest
  • Avoid discriminatory, personal, or inappropriate comments
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or communicate promptly if additional time is required

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the Academic Editor may make or recommend an appropriate editorial decision based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and JSKAR's editorial policies.

Possible decisions may include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are important evidence in the editorial process, but they do not automatically determine the final editorial decision. The Academic Editor is responsible for evaluating the overall evidence and applying the journal's editorial standards.

Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors should respond to reviewer and editorial comments in a clear and systematic manner. Authors may be asked to provide a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by other reviewers when appropriate. The extent of re-review depends on the nature of the revisions and the Academic Editor's assessment.

Editorial Independence and Editor-Authored Manuscripts

JSKAR maintains editorial independence when members of the editorial team submit manuscripts to the journal.

When an Editor-in-Chief, Academic Editor, or other editorial team member submits a manuscript:

  • The submitting editor is excluded from the editorial handling of the manuscript.
  • An independent Academic Editor is assigned to manage the manuscript.
  • The submitting editor has no involvement in reviewer selection.
  • The submitting editor does not participate in the peer-review process.
  • The submitting editor does not participate in the editorial decision.
  • The manuscript follows the same peer-review standards applied to other submissions.

These safeguards are intended to protect the independence and credibility of the editorial decision-making process.

Appeals and Concerns

Authors who believe that a significant procedural error or serious misunderstanding affected an editorial decision may contact the JSKAR Editorial Office to request consideration of an appeal.

Appeals should identify the specific procedural or substantive concern and provide supporting information where appropriate. Appeals are considered according to the journal's editorial policies and do not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Concerns relating to research integrity, reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, or editorial procedures may also be directed to the Editorial Office.

Reviewer Training and Resources

JSKAR provides practical guidance and training resources to support reviewers in conducting constructive, ethical, and effective peer review.

Reviewer Training Videos

The following short videos introduce key aspects of reviewing for JSKAR, including reviewer responsibilities, ethical considerations, use of the journal's online submission system, and effective review practices.

▶ Video 6 — Becoming a Reviewer & Ethics
Reviewer responsibilities, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and ethical considerations.
Approximately 5–6 minutes

▶ Video 7 — How to Review in OJS
A practical walkthrough of accessing manuscripts, completing the review form, and submitting a review through OJS.
Approximately 6–8 minutes

▶ Video 8 — Writing an Effective Review
Guidance on providing clear, specific, constructive, and useful feedback to authors and editors.
Approximately 6–7 minutes

Reviewer training videos may be provided directly to invited reviewers through reviewer invitation and communication emails.

Peer Review and Publication Ethics

JSKAR expects all participants in the peer-review process to follow appropriate standards of research and publication ethics. This includes maintaining confidentiality, declaring conflicts of interest, providing objective assessments, and avoiding inappropriate use of unpublished information.

For broader information about research integrity, conflicts of interest, corrections, retractions, and publication ethics, see Publication Ethics.

Related Policies

Editorial Team & Governance | Publication Ethics | Submit Your Research | Contact Editorial Office