Review Process Policy

## 1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of JTEB undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their suitability for the journal's scope, compliance with the author guidelines, originality, completeness, and adherence to publication ethics.

The editorial team may use plagiarism detection tools as part of the initial assessment. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will proceed to the peer-review process.

## 2. Peer-Review Model

The Journal of JTEB applies a double-blind peer-review process. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process, to the extent practicable.

Authors are required to prepare manuscripts in a way that does not directly disclose their identities in the review document. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.

The editorial team will take reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of both parties during the review process.

## 3. Number and Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening will normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, relevant publication record, and ability to provide an impartial assessment. The journal seeks to avoid conflicts of interest when assigning reviewers.

If the reviewers' recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review or conduct further editorial assessment before making a decision.

## 4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on relevant criteria, including:

- Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
- Originality and contribution to existing knowledge.
- Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and research questions.
- Appropriateness of the theoretical framework and literature review.
- Suitability and rigor of the research methodology.
- Accuracy and clarity of data analysis, results, and interpretation.
- Consistency between the findings, discussion, and conclusions.
- Quality of academic writing, organization, and presentation.
- Compliance with research ethics and publication standards.

Reviewers should provide clear comments and constructive recommendations to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

## 5. Editorial Decision-Making

The editor is responsible for making the final decision on each manuscript, taking into account the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scholarly quality, its relevance to the journal, and compliance with publication ethics.

Editorial decisions may include:

- *Accept:* The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.
- *Minor Revision:* The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision.
- *Major Revision:* The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
- *Reject:* The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

A favorable recommendation from reviewers does not automatically guarantee acceptance. The editor retains responsibility for the final decision and must ensure that the decision is based on academic merit, fairness, and the journal's editorial policies.

## 6. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editorial office. Authors are required to provide a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

When a comment cannot be fully addressed, authors should provide a clear academic justification. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being closed or treated as a new submission.

## 7. Review Timeline

The editorial team will make reasonable efforts to process manuscripts and communicate decisions in a timely manner. The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

Any estimated review timelines published by the journal should reflect its actual editorial practices.

## 8. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual error, a demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript, an undisclosed conflict of interest, or a substantial procedural irregularity may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office.

An appeal must include the manuscript identification number, the original editorial decision, and a clear, evidence-based explanation of the grounds for appeal. Authors should address specific concerns rather than merely disagreeing with the reviewers' academic opinions.

The appeal will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate editor who was not directly involved in the original decision, where practicable. Additional expert advice may be sought if necessary.

The journal may uphold the original decision, reconsider the manuscript, or initiate a further independent review. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author. The journal's appeal decision will normally be final.

Submitting an appeal does not guarantee acceptance or publication of the manuscript.

## 9. Confidentiality, Ethics, and Reviewer Conduct

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage, or involve other individuals in the review process without the editor's permission.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when they cannot provide an impartial assessment.

The Journal of JTEB is committed to ensuring that the peer-review process is fair, confidential, transparent, and free from discrimination. All review and editorial decisions must comply with the journal's publication ethics policies.

## 10. Review Process Transparency

The Journal of JTEB seeks to maintain a transparent and accountable peer-review system. Editorial decisions, reviewer recommendations, revisions, and appeals are managed through the journal's editorial workflow and documented as appropriate.

The journal may periodically evaluate its peer-review procedures to improve efficiency, consistency, and the quality of published research.