Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Process

Journal of Original Studies (JOS) conducts a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, and integrity of its publications. All editorial processes are managed through our online article submission system.

The review process is structured as follows:

1. Initial Editorial Review

All submitted articles are first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may assign the article to the relevant Section Editor. At this stage, the following criteria are considered:

• Compliance with the journal's aim and scope.
• Adherence to the author guidelines (format, length, language).
• Level of scientific novelty and contribution.
• Originality.

The journal is a member of CrossCheck and screens all submissions using iThenticate software. Manuscripts that are out of scope, lack originality, contain serious methodological flaws, or are suspected of plagiarism are desk rejected before being sent for external peer review.

2. Referee Assignment

Articles that pass the initial evaluation are assigned to at least two (2) independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The selection of appropriate referees and management of the process is the responsibility of the Section Editor / Editor-in-Chief.

3. Double-Blind Evaluation

The journal applies a double-blind review model:

• Author identities are concealed from reviewers.
• Reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, methodology, contribution to the field, and clarity. They are expected to provide constructive comments and a confidential recommendation to the editor. The standard review period is 30 days (4 weeks).

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewer reports, the Section Editor provides a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Possible decisions are:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Revisions Required (Minor/Major): The manuscript requires minor or major revisions before acceptance.
• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires significant changes and must undergo a new review cycle.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

The final decision, along with anonymized reviewer comments, is communicated to the corresponding author by the Editor-in-Chief.

5. Author Revisions

If a "Revisions Required" decision is made, authors must revise their manuscript according to the reviewer and editor comments. Authors are also required to submit a detailed response letter explaining the changes made.

Revision deadlines are:

• Minor Revisions: 21 days (3 weeks).
• Major Revisions: 60 days (8 weeks). (Extensions may be requested with justification.)

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation, at the editor's discretion.

6. Final Decision

The final authority on all manuscripts rests with the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief's decision, based on reviewer reports and the Section Editor's recommendation, is final.

7. Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was unfair may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed justification. Appeals must include clear evidence of why the decision should be reconsidered.

8. Layout Control

Following acceptance, the article undergoes professional typesetting. A galley proof is sent to the corresponding author for final checking. At this stage, only minor typographical or formatting corrections are permitted; no significant changes to content, data, or authorship are allowed.