Peer Review Process

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the JARD Editorial Office. This screening focuses on the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, compliance with submission guidelines, completeness of required sections, language clarity, and adherence to ethical standards.

At this stage, manuscripts are also checked for originality and plagiarism using appropriate similarity detection tools. Submissions that do not meet minimum academic or ethical standards, or fall outside the journal's focus, may be returned to authors for correction or declined before external review.

Assignment to Section Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Section Editor or Associate Editor with subject expertise relevant to the manuscript's field. The editor conducts a detailed academic assessment to determine the manuscript's suitability for peer review.

The assigned editor is responsible for identifying qualified independent reviewers with appropriate academic or professional experience. Editors ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest and can provide an objective and informed evaluation of the submission.

Double-Blind Peer Review

JARD operates a double-blind peer-review system, where both the authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed. Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant discipline.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on originality, methodological rigor, data quality, analytical depth, relevance of findings, clarity of presentation, and contribution to existing knowledge. Ethical considerations and citation quality are also evaluated as part of the review.

Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers submit detailed evaluation reports that include both qualitative comments and a formal recommendation. These recommendations typically fall into one of four categories: accept without revision, accept with minor revisions, revise and resubmit (major revisions), or reject.

Reviewer feedback is constructive and aimed at improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript. Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments to guide revisions while preserving the confidentiality and integrity of the review process.

Author Revision and Resubmission

Authors requested to revise their manuscripts are given sufficient time to address all reviewer comments. Revised submissions must be accompanied by a response-to-reviewers document, outlining how each comment has been addressed or providing justification where changes were not made.

The editorial team carefully evaluates revised manuscripts to ensure that reviewer concerns have been adequately resolved. Incomplete or insufficient revisions may lead to further revision requests or rejection.

Secondary Review

For manuscripts undergoing major revisions, the revised version may be returned to the original reviewers for a second evaluation. This ensures that substantive academic concerns have been fully addressed and that the manuscript now meets JARD's publication standards.

Secondary reviews help maintain consistency, fairness, and academic rigor, particularly for complex or highly technical submissions.

Final Editorial Decision

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the editorial team. This decision is based on reviewer recommendations, editorial judgment, and the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript.

Authors are formally notified of the final decision along with any remaining editorial comments. Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, while rejected manuscripts are provided with clear reasons for the decision.

Copyediting and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting, formatting, and final quality checks to ensure consistency, accuracy, and clarity. Authors may be requested to review and approve final proofs before publication.

Once finalized, articles are published online and made discoverable through indexing and academic search platforms, subject to indexing criteria and policies.

Review Timeline

The average peer-review period at JARD is 2–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required. JARD is committed to timely communication while maintaining academic rigor.

Ethical Commitment

All reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality and declare any potential conflicts of interest. JARD upholds international best practices in publication ethics to ensure trust, credibility, and scholarly excellence.

Download Peer Review Process (PDF)

Complete process document — 3 pages