Submission and Peer Review Process
JISTaP employs an efficient online submission and peer review system, accessible at https://acoms.accesson.kr/JISTaP/oprs/main/jrnlMain.do, to ensure a rigorous evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.
Initial Assessment and Desk Rejection
Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation to ascertain its adherence to the journal's format and alignment with its aims and scope. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be subjected to desk rejection. This is determined based on several factors, including:
Scope Alignment: Manuscripts must closely align with the journal's focus and scope. Those significantly deviating from the scope may be desk rejected.
Quality Standards: Submissions are expected to meet minimum quality standards in terms of methodology, clarity, and scientific significance. Manuscripts falling below these standards may be rejected at this stage.
Ethical Concerns: Any manuscripts raising ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or improper citations, are subject to immediate desk rejection.
Authors will be promptly notified if their manuscript undergoes desk rejection. However, if the desk rejection is primarily due to scope alignment, authors may be offered the option to resubmit their work after appropriate revisions.
Single-Blind Peer Review
This journal employs a single-blind review procedure for all submissions, including special/guest-edited issues. In a single-blind review, the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. However, the reviewers are aware of the authors' identities. This approach ensures unbiased evaluations.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial assessment undergo a thorough peer review. Two experienced experts within the relevant field are assigned to review the manuscript. While authors can suggest potential reviewers during submission, the final selection of reviewers is at the discretion of the journal's editorial team. The peer review process for these articles adheres to the journal's standard review protocol.
Review Criteria and Decision-Making
We await input from the selected reviewers before proceeding. In specific cases, a statistical review might be solicited. The acceptance of a manuscript hinges on the quality, originality, and scientific significance of the research. The final decision is formulated based on reviewers' critiques and their recommended decisions.
We strive to provide an initial decision within four weeks of manuscript submission. Reviewers' feedback is sent to the corresponding author through email. The corresponding author is expected to explain how they've addressed each reviewer's comments in the revised manuscript. If the revised manuscript is not resubmitted within four weeks of the editorial decision, the submission will be considered withdrawn. The final decision—whether the manuscript is accepted or rejected—is then communicated to the corresponding author by the editor.
We ensure equitable treatment for all submissions. Manuscripts authored by our editors, staff, or members of the editorial board go through the same meticulous review process as unsolicited submissions. Throughout the review phase, authors submitting their work are not involved in the decision-making process. Editors do not oversee their own personal manuscripts, even if they are specifically requested.
Inclusivity and Transparency
We do not provide an assurance of automatic acceptance for any manuscript, nor do we make commitments to exceptionally expedited review times for unsolicited submissions. Even manuscripts that have been specifically commissioned undergo a rigorous and thorough review process prior to their publication.
We value your commitment to the JISTaP peer review policy. This framework is designed to uphold the integrity, quality, and impartiality of our publication process. We strongly encourage authors to actively participate in the collaborative effort aimed at enhancing the caliber of their research.
For a more comprehensive understanding of ethical considerations, data sharing, reproducibility, issues related to plagiarism and misconduct, procedures for post-publication corrections, and the definitive criteria defining authorship, we invite you to explore the dedicated sections within our ethical guidelines, which are readily accessible on our website.
Editorial Decision Appeal
At JISTaP, we prioritize the integrity and transparency of our peer review system. The appeal process has been established to provide authors with a channel to seek accountability and clarity regarding editorial decisions. The appeal process is a means for authors to express concerns or disagreements with an editorial decision. Upon receiving your appeal, an impartial third party, who was not involved in the original decision, will be assigned to assess the situation. This party could be an independent reviewer or an editorial board member not connected to the initial decision. Following the impartial review, the Editor-in-Chief will evaluate the appeal and the recommendations made. After
careful consideration, the Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision.