Review Process

Our journal is implementing Double Blind Review for each submitted article. The submitted manuscript in this journal is screened for plagiarism using iThenticate.

JIKI Double Blind Review Process

The detailed breakdown of our peer review workflow is outlined below:

Stage Process Description
1. Manuscript Submission Authors submit their complete manuscript through the Open Journal System (OJS) platform. Authors are strictly required to ensure that the submitted manuscript file is fully anonymized (devoid of author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or identifying metadata).
2. Initial Editorial Screening & Desk Review
  • Anonymization Check: The Editorial Board screens the submission to verify that the manuscript has been properly anonymized by the author and complies with the submission checklist.
  • Desk Review Decision: The editors make an initial judgment regarding scope, basic standards, and guidelines.
  • Passes Desk Review?
    • No: The manuscript faces a Desk Rejection and is returned to the authors.
    • Yes: The manuscript proceeds to the peer review stage.
3. Double-Blind Review The anonymized manuscript is assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers evaluate the paper based on its scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field without knowing the authors' identities.
4. Review Submission Reviewers submit their formal evaluation reports, detailed comments, and recommendations through the system back to the Editorial Board.
5. Editor Decision Based on the reviewers' feedback and recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor weighs all views and makes one of three critical decisions:
  • Accept: The manuscript is Accepted for Publication and moves to copyediting.
  • Reject: The manuscript is Rejected due to significant limitations or out-of-scope content.
  • Revise: The editor requests revisions, changing the status to Author Revises Manuscript.
6. Manuscript Revision & Re-evaluation If revision is requested, authors must improve their paper according to the reviewers' comments and resubmit it within the specified timeframe. The Revised Manuscript for Re-evaluation will loop back into the Double-Blind Review process or be re-evaluated by the editors to ensure all points have been properly addressed before a final decision is reached.