1. General Statement

Journal of Science, Technology and Applied Research is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, credibility, and academic relevance of all published articles through a rigorous peer-review process. The journal applies a scholarly review system to ensure that submitted manuscripts meet the standards of originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, clarity, and contribution to the relevant fields of study.

The peer-review process is intended to assist editors in making objective editorial decisions and to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

2. Peer Review Model

Journal of Science, Technology and Applied Research applies a double-blind peer-review process. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other.

Authors are required to remove any identifying information from the manuscript file before submission, including names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other details that may reveal the authors’ identities. Reviewers are also required to maintain confidentiality and must not disclose their identities to the authors during or after the review process.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts will first be reviewed by the editorial team to determine whether they are suitable for the journal. The initial screening includes assessment of:

1. Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
2. Compliance with author guidelines and manuscript format;
3. Originality and similarity level;
4. Academic quality and clarity of writing;
5. Ethical compliance;
6. Completeness of manuscript components;
7. Suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected before being sent to reviewers. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will proceed to the peer-review stage.

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, and relevance to the subject area of the manuscript. The editorial team will assign at least two independent reviewers to evaluate each manuscript.

Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, research topic, or funding sources. If a reviewer identifies a potential conflict of interest, they must immediately inform the editor and decline the review assignment.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively. The assessment may include, but is not limited to, the following criteria:

1. Originality and novelty of the research;
2. Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;
3. Clarity of research objectives;
4. Appropriateness of research methods;
5. Validity and reliability of data or analysis;
6. Quality of discussion and interpretation;
7. Contribution to knowledge, policy, practice, or innovation;
8. Adequacy and relevance of references;
9. Ethical considerations;
10. Structure, clarity, and quality of academic writing.

Reviewers should provide clear comments, constructive suggestions, and recommendations to help authors improve their manuscripts.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

1. Accept Submission
   The manuscript is suitable for publication without further revision.
2. Minor Revision
   The manuscript requires minor corrections or improvements before publication.
3. Major Revision
   The manuscript requires substantial revision and may need further review before a final decision is made.
4. Reject and Resubmit
   The manuscript has potential but requires major redevelopment before it can be considered as a new submission.
5. Reject Submission
   The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to significant weaknesses, lack of originality, methodological problems, ethical concerns, or incompatibility with the journal’s focus and scope.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the editor-in-chief or the assigned editor.

7. Editorial Decision

The editor will consider reviewers’ comments, recommendations, and the overall quality of the manuscript before making a final decision. The possible editorial decisions are:

1. Accepted;
2. Accepted with minor revisions;
3. Major revisions required;
4. Rejected with invitation to resubmit;
5. Rejected.

The editorial decision will be communicated to the corresponding author along with reviewer comments and editorial feedback.

8. Revision Process

Authors who receive a revision decision are required to revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. Authors must also provide a response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.

If authors disagree with any reviewer or editor comment, they must provide a clear and respectful academic justification. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions required.

Failure to submit the revised manuscript within the specified period may result in withdrawal of the submission from the editorial process.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Science, Technology and Applied Research are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial board members, or publisher when necessary.

Reviewers must not use unpublished materials, data, ideas, or findings from the manuscript for personal advantage or for their own research without written permission from the authors.

10. Objectivity and Fairness

The peer-review process must be conducted objectively, fairly, and professionally. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution to the field.

Reviewers must not make personal criticism of authors. Comments should be constructive, evidence-based, respectful, and focused on improving the quality of the manuscript.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by authors’ nationality, gender, religion, ethnicity, political views, institutional affiliation, personal background, or other non-academic factors.

11. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may affect the impartiality of the review process.

Conflicts of interest may include financial relationships, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, academic competition, professional collaboration, or other circumstances that may influence judgment.

If a conflict of interest exists, the editor or reviewer must withdraw from handling or reviewing the manuscript.

12. Timeliness of Review

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the time frame determined by the journal. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review on time, they should notify the editor immediately.

The editorial team will make reasonable efforts to ensure that the peer-review process is conducted efficiently without compromising the quality and integrity of the review.

13. Ethical Concerns During Review

Reviewers are encouraged to report any suspected ethical issues to the editor. These may include plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, image manipulation, unethical research practices, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.

The editorial team will investigate ethical concerns carefully and may request clarification, supporting documents, raw data, or ethical approval from the authors when necessary.

14. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript will be accepted for publication only after it has successfully passed the editorial and peer-review process, fulfilled all revision requirements, and complied with the journal’s publication ethics and author guidelines.

The final accepted manuscript may undergo copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and final editorial checks before publication.

15. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that an editorial decision was made based on misunderstanding, factual error, or procedural irregularity. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editor-in-chief and must include clear academic reasons and supporting evidence.

The editorial board will review the appeal objectively. The final decision after appeal is binding.

16. Commitment to Review Quality

Journal of Science, Technology and Applied Research is committed to ensuring that its peer-review process is transparent, ethical, constructive, and academically rigorous. The journal continuously seeks to improve its review practices in order to support the publication of high-quality, credible, and internationally relevant scholarly works.