All submissions to JARNAS undergo a rigorous review process. This process is single-blind, where reviewers remain anonymous to writers, but reviewers know the authors' identities. The standard peer review process is as follows:

Editors examine submissions to ensure they meet the requirements of JARNAS, including English, scientific values, and ethical considerations.

The submission will be allocated to an Editor who will directly invite reviewers to examine the manuscript or assign a Section Editor.

Once the Editor receives the final reviewers' reports, the Editor is responsible for deciding whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.

After receiving a revised manuscript and explanations, Editor will consult with the reviewers to determine the final decision. Acceptance is contingent upon thorough and definitive reports verifying the manuscript's significance and impact in the respective domains.

A different team member handles submissions from Editor-in-Chief, Editors, and other board members.

JARNAS offers a standard review report template to facilitate an organized and efficient approach. The reviewer should evaluate the work's scientific content and presentation quality, providing helpful feedback to enhance its quality. This ensures an equitable, prompt, thorough, and standardized evaluation of the research included within.

JARNAS is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and considers publication malpractice and conflicts of interest with great seriousness.



The flowcharts of the review process in effect are as follows:

Review-Procedure Flowchart

Minor-Revision Flowchart

Major-Revision Flowchart



Workflow Settings

Additional time for all assigned users when Editor extends the due date: 5 days

Time to take action when a new submission arrives before becoming overdue: 10 days

Time for Editor to assign an Editor in “checked” status before becoming overdue: 10 days

Time for the assigned Editor to take action in “With Editor” status before becoming overdue: 10 days

Time for the assigned editors to take action in “Ready for Decision” status before becoming overdue: 10 days

Time for Editor to make a decision before becoming overdue: 10 days

Time for the assigned Editor to prepare the article for publishing after it is accepted before becoming overdue: 10 days

Time for the Statistics Editor, Layout Editor, and Language Editor to complete the task before becoming overdue: 10 days

Time for Layout Editor to complete the task before becoming overdue: 20 days

Time to Author for a resubmission: 10 days

Time to Author for a minor revision: 15 days

Time to Author for a major revision: 20 days

Time for Reviewer to respond to the invitation. 5 days

Time for Reviewer to review the article after accepting the invitation. 20 days