The peer-review process

JSDTL offers the highest standards of peer review, overseen by expert editors and editorial boards. We are proud of our friendly and constructive approach to all our potential authors. Our editorial teams evaluate submissions on relevance, sound methodology, and clarity rather than the predicted level of future importance.
Our peer-review process is double-blind.

Double-blind review

  • Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous.
  • Author anonymity prevents reviewer bias, for example, based on an author's country of origin or previous controversial work.
  • Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers rather than their reputation.
  • Reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject, or self-citation.

Peer reviewer selection and performance

JSDTL editors ensure a highly objective, unbiased, and timely peer review standard. Editors monitor the performance of peer reviewers performance and reviews' quality and timeliness. Peer reviewers who repeatedly produce poor quality, tardy, abusive, or unconstructive reviews are not used again. Editors of JSDTL encourage peer reviewers to identify if they have a conflict of interest with the material they are being asked to review. Editors ask that peer reviewers decline invitations requesting peer review where circumstances might prevent them from producing fair peer reviews.

Step-by-step process of reviewing articles in the JSDTL:

  1. Receiving the manuscript: The journal's editor-in-chief receives the manuscript and assigns an associate editor to handle the review process.

  2. Pre-screening: The associate editor checks the manuscript for suitability with the journal's scope and formatting guidelines. If the manuscript meets the criteria, it moves to the next step. If not, it may be rejected without being sent for review.

  3. Reviewer selection: The associate editor selects potential reviewers who are experts in the relevant field and are not affiliated with the authors or the editorial board. The reviewers are usually selected based on their expertise, prior experience in reviewing manuscripts, and availability to review the manuscript within a specific time frame. Typically, at least two reviewers are selected for each manuscript, which can be increased if necessary.

  4. Reviewer invitation: The associate editor invites the selected reviewers to review the manuscript. The invitation includes the manuscript and a review form or guidelines to follow while reviewing the manuscript.

  5. Reviewing process: The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide feedback through comments, suggestions, and recommendations. They also provide a rating or a decision on the manuscript's suitability for publication. The reviewers are expected to provide an objective and constructive critique of the manuscript.

  6. Editor's decision: The associate editor receives the feedback from the reviewers and makes a recommendation to the editor-in-chief based on the reviewers' feedback. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript. Sometimes, a third reviewer may be asked to review the manuscript to resolve disagreements between the initial reviewers.

  7. Author notification: The author is informed of the editor's decision, along with any feedback or recommendations provided by the reviewers. If the manuscript is rejected, the author may choose to submit to another journal or revise the manuscript and resubmit it to the same journal.

  8. Revisions: If the manuscript is accepted with minor revisions, the author is given a deadline to submit the revised manuscript. If the manuscript requires major revisions, it may be sent back to the reviewers for another round of review.

  9. Final decision: Once the revised manuscript is received, the associate editor and/or editor-in-chief reviews the revisions and decides whether to accept or reject the manuscript.

  10. Publication: If the manuscript is accepted, it goes through a final copy-editing process and is published in the journal.

Resources for Reviewers

COPE: Peer review processes

Publons for Reviewers (Verifying Reviews)
Web of Science Academy
Elsevier Researcher Academy