Peer Review Process

JINA employs a rigorous double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review process in which every manuscript undergoes structured editorial and peer evaluation before acceptance for publication. Manuscripts are assigned to qualified reviewers whose expertise aligns with the subject matter and are evaluated solely on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, integrity, and contribution to the field. Reviewers provide fair, objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback to strengthen the quality and contribution of the manuscript. This process ensures that published research is accurate, original, methodologically sound, and relevant to the journal’s scope.

JINA peer-review values:

  • Diversity of perspectives from academics and practitioners across regions, sectors, and organisational contexts.
  • Respectful and constructive dialogue, ensuring feedback enhances the manuscript without personal criticism.
  • Ethical responsibility in maintaining confidentiality and integrity throughout the review process.

Ethical Standards

  • All manuscripts, abstracts, and reviews are strictly confidential.
  • Reviewers are prohibited from sharing information about manuscripts, peer reviews, or the review process with any third party without explicit editorial approval, even after publication.
  • Reviewer comments must be objective, unbiased, and focused solely on the scholarly quality and contribution of the manuscript.
  • Conflicts of interest must be declared, and reviewers with potential conflicts are recused from evaluating the manuscript.
  • All reviewers and editors are expected to follow COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, including confidentiality, impartiality, respect, and accountability. Reviewers must disclose any ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, AI use, unethical methodology) during their evaluation.

Desk Review

  1. Upon the initial submission, the manuscript is first reviewed by the Editor and Editorial Office to assess:
    • Fit with the journal’s scope, thematic focus, and conceptual framework
    • Overall quality, clarity, and adherence to submission guidelines
    • Plagiarism, AI, and Originality check
    • Ethical compliance (e.g., IRB approval for research involving human subjects)
  2. Manuscripts outside the scope are rejected at this stage without external review (“desk rejection”), with authors provided a clear rationale and, where appropriate, recommendations for alternative publication venues.
  3. Manuscripts that are promising but require alignment with JINA guidelines are returned with detailed instructions for resubmission.

Peer Review Assignment

  • If a manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to an Editorial Office/Assistant Editor, who coordinates the peer review process, selects appropriate reviewers, and manages all editorial correspondence with the authors.
  • The Editorial Office identifies at least two expert reviewers in the manuscript’s disciplinary area. At least one reviewer is external to the journal’s editorial board/country to ensure objectivity and breadth of expertise.
  • Reviewer selection considers subject-matter expertise, methodological competence, and familiarity with the research context.

Double-Anonymity (Double Blind-Review)

  • Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
  • Reviewer reports provide recommendations on acceptability: (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, and Reject)
  • Editors synthesise feedback from reviewers to make the final editorial decision.

Timeline

The peer review process is designed to balance thorough evaluation with timely communication and typically spans approximately four months from submission to acceptance:

  • Acknowledgment of submission: Immediate automated email to the corresponding author.
  • Desk review and editorial scrutiny: 7–10 days for assessing scope, quality, and initial suitability.
  • Assignment to reviewers: 3–5 days for sending the manuscript to at least two independent experts.
  • Peer review duration: 35–45 days, depending on reviewer availability, for detailed and constructive feedback.
  • Author revision period: Up to 10–30 days for incorporating reviewer comments and resubmitting the manuscript (minor Changes) and 90 days for major changes.
  • Final reviewer evaluation (if required): 10–15 days for reviewers to assess revisions.
  • Expert editorial scrutiny and final decision: 10–15 days to synthesise feedback, ensure rigorous assessment, and communicate the final decision.

Publication

  • Accepted manuscripts are first published online for immediate access and global dissemination and are subsequently included in the print edition of the journal. The accepted articles are typically typeset and published in their final form within 20 - 30 business days of final acceptance.

Continuous Quality Assurance

  • All peer reviews are evaluated for thoroughness, constructiveness, and scholarly engagement.
  • Editors maintain oversight to ensure consistency, fairness, and alignment with JHROS’s mission.
  • JHROS periodically reviews its peer review process to incorporate global best practices, ensuring that the process remains transparent, fair, and aligned with the highest standards of scholarly publishing.

Selection of Peer Reviewers

The Editorial Office identifies at least two expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s disciplinary area. Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise, relevant scholarly contributions, and suitability for the manuscript. All reviewers:

  • Must be independent of the authors and their institutions.
  • Must have no actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • Must not have co-authored with any of the authors within the previous three years.
  • Must not be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors.
  • Must confirm their availability and declare any potential conflicts of interest before commencing the review.

Reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, and the identities of the authors are likewise concealed from reviewers to ensure objectivity and maintain the integrity of the double-blind peer review process.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to conduct a fair, objective, and constructive evaluation of submitted manuscripts using the structured Peer Review Form provided by the journal. Manuscripts should be assessed based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Clarity of problem statement, research gap, and research questions
  • Appropriateness and rigor of methodology
  • Quality and analysis of data
  • Strength and validity of conclusions
  • Adherence to ethical standards
  • Appropriate and sufficient engagement with current literature
  • Discussion, conclusion, and implications coherence and integrations
  • Overall quality and presentations         

Based on the above criteria, reviewers are requested to make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Reject (with clear and constructive justification)

Recommendations must be supported by clear and reasoned justification. Confidential comments to the editor may be used for sensitive or ethical concerns.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer evaluations and their judgment, the Editorial Office makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who issues the final decision. Authors are notified of the decision, along with the reviewer's comments. For revisions, authors must submit a detailed response to each reviewer's comment.

If major revisions are requested, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. Minor modifications are typically reviewed only by the editor.

Guidelines for Writing Review Reports

Review reports should be clear, structured, and constructive, written in professional English.

Review reports should include:

  • Brief Summary
    A concise overview of the manuscript’s purpose, contribution, and strengths.
  • General Comments
    Evaluation of the manuscript’s overall quality, relevance, originality, and contribution.
  • Major Comments
    Issues related to theory, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, or conceptual framing.
  • Minor Comments
    Suggestions related to clarity, organisation, presentation, or referencing.

Reviewers should:

  • Avoid excessive self-citation requests
  • Base critiques on scholarly reasoning
  • Distinguish clearly between major and minor issues

 Appeals Process

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection must submit a written appeal outlining the scientific rationale for reconsideration. Appeals submitted by phone or through informal communication will not be accepted and should not contain personal or emotional arguments.

The editorial team will review the appeal and, where appropriate, may initiate a reassessment involving the original reviewers and/or additional experts. However:

  • Appeals must identify specific errors in the review or editorial process.
  • The decision to consult new reviewers’ rests solely with the editorial team.
  • Authors must not submit the same manuscript to another journal while an appeal is under active consideration.

All appeal decisions are final, and authors will be notified of the outcome in writing.

Post-Acceptance and Copyediting

Once accepted, manuscripts undergo professional copyediting to ensure clarity, readability, consistency, and adherence to the journal’s editorial standards.

  • Authors receive the copy-edited manuscript for review and approval before typesetting.
  • Final page proofs (e-proofs) are provided to the authors for verification.
  • Only one designated author communicates corrections on behalf of all co-authors.
  • At this stage, authors are responsible for confirming the accuracy of all author names, affiliations, and acknowledgments.

The final formatted article is published online and included in the next available issue.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal acknowledges the valuable contributions of reviewers through:

  • Annual acknowledgment of reviewers in the journal.
  • Certificates of service or letters of recognition for academic records.
  • Recognition of reviewers who consistently provide timely, constructive, and high-quality reviews.

Reviewers may also be invited to contribute to special issues, serve on the Editorial Board, or participate in relevant training and professional development activities.