Peer Review Process
KUJAS uses a double-blind peer review process to support quality, fairness, and editorial integrity.
Overview
Double-Blind Review
All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system. KUJAS applies a double-blind peer review process, meaning that author and reviewer identities are concealed during review.
Manuscripts that meet the journal’s minimum requirements and fall within the aims and scope are handled by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the editorial office for further assessment and reviewer selection.
Reviewer Selection
- Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and relevance to the manuscript.
- Reviewers are external to the authors’ institution and are not members of the journal’s editorial board.
- Authors may suggest potential reviewers; however, the final selection is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Initial Screening
Technical Check
- Manuscript structure and completeness are checked against the Author Guidelines.
- This step does not assess scientific quality; it verifies that essential sections, formatting, and required declarations are present.
Similarity Check
A similarity report (iThenticate) is used as part of editorial screening before peer review.
Similarity outcomes are evaluated by the editorial office. High similarity may lead to rejection or a request for clarification/revision, depending on the source and context of overlap.
Step-by-Step Workflow
-
Submission of ArticleThe corresponding (submitting) author submits the manuscript through the online submission system.
-
Structural AssessmentThe editorial office checks structure and compliance with the Author Guidelines (required sections, formatting, and declarations).
-
Editor-in-Chief AssessmentThe Editor-in-Chief evaluates suitability for the journal’s scope and basic originality/interest. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage without external review.
-
Similarity ScreeningAll submissions undergo similarity screening using iThenticate. Reports are evaluated by the editorial office to identify potential plagiarism, duplication, or inappropriate text overlap.
-
Invitation to ReviewersThe Editor-in-Chief invites external reviewers. KUJAS typically seeks at least two independent reviewer reports; additional reviewers may be invited if needed.
-
Response to InvitationsInvited reviewers accept or decline based on expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability.
-
Review is ConductedReviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit confidential comments to the editor and constructive feedback for the authors, with a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
-
Editorial Evaluation of ReviewsThe Editor-in-Chief considers all reviews. If reports conflict substantially, an additional reviewer may be invited to support decision-making.
-
Initial DecisionThe author receives the editorial decision and reviewer comments through the online system. Reviewer identities remain anonymous.
-
RevisionIf revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript and a response letter explaining how each comment was addressed. Changes should be clearly indicated (e.g., tracked changes or highlighted text).
-
Final Decision & ProductionIf accepted, the manuscript proceeds to editorial production (copyediting/layout). Publication fees, if applicable, are handled according to the journal’s policies before final publication.