At JEET, we are committed to maintaining the highest scholarly integrity and publication ethics standards. We employ a double-blind peer review process to maintain scholarly integrity and publication ethics. Manuscripts are anonymously reviewed by experts chosen by the Editorial Team to ensure impartiality and quality.
- Submission: Authors must submit their manuscripts to the journal online submission.
- Screening: Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial office to ensure they meet the journal's scope and formatting requirements.
- Reviewer Assignment: The Editorial Team will contact the reviewers selected for the paper. Once a reviewer agrees to review the paper, they are given a certain amount of time to complete it.
- Invitation: The Editorial Team contacts the selected reviewers and invites them to review the manuscript. Reviewers are provided with the manuscript title, abstract, and keywords to assess whether they have the necessary expertise and availability to review the manuscript within the specified timeframe. Upon agreeing to review the manuscript, reviewers are provided with access to the full manuscript and are asked to adhere to the journal's review guidelines and ethical standards.
- Review Process: Reviewers submit their confidential review reports to the Editorial Team within the specified timeframe. Review reports include an overall recommendation (e.g., Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, Resubmit Elsewhere, Decline Submission, See Comments) and detailed comments addressing specific aspects of the manuscript.
- Decision: Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editorial Team makes a decision regarding the manuscript, considering factors such as scientific merit, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards. The decision may be to accept the manuscript, request revisions, or reject it.
Editorial Decision
Review reports typically include an overall recommendation regarding the manuscript's fate. This recommendation summarizes the reviewer's assessment of the manuscript and suggests the appropriate action for the Editorial Team to consider. The overall recommendation could be one of the following:
a. Accept Submission: Recommended when the submission meets publication criteria and is well-written, original, significant, and relevant. Minor revisions may be needed.
b. Revisions Required: Suggested when the submission shows promise but needs minor to moderate revisions. Provide clear feedback and indicate acceptance is contingent upon satisfactory revisions.
c. Resubmit for Review: Appropriate when the submission has potential but needs substantial revisions or additional data. Encourage comprehensive addressing of reviewers' concerns and undergo another round of peer review upon resubmission.
d. Resubmit Elsewhere: Recommended when the submission doesn't align with the journal's focus. Provide constructive feedback and suggest alternative publication venues or adjustments for suitability.
e. Decline Submission: Applicable when the submission lacks originality, significance, or quality. Provide specific reasons for rejection and offer guidance for improvement if possible.
f. See Comments: Use when more clarification or discussion is needed. Provide detailed feedback and encourage dialogue to resolve outstanding issues.