Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Model

NTU-JPS uses a double-blind peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Overview of the Peer Review Process

Initial Screening

  • All submitted manuscripts are first checked by the Editor-in-Chief.
  • The purpose of this screening is to assess scope suitability, basic quality, ethical issues, and compliance with submission guidelines.
  • Manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to editor assignment.

Assignment to an Editor

  • Based on the manuscript’s discipline, the Editor-in-Chief assigns an appropriate Section/Handling Editor.
  • The assigned editor becomes responsible for managing the full peer review process.

Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

  • The assigned editor selects and invites a minimum of two qualified external reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
  • Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are evaluated for potential conflicts of interest or bias. The journal is not obliged to use them.

Peer Review Rounds

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s originality, scientific quality, clarity, methodology, and contribution to the field.
  • Reviewers provide detailed comments and a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
  • The editor forwards anonymized reviewer comments to the authors.
  • Manuscripts may undergo multiple rounds of peer review until a final editorial decision is reached.

Final Editorial Decision

  • The assigned editor recommends the decision based on the reviewers’ comments and the quality of revisions the Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision.
  • Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to proofreading, formatting, and production.

Expected Turnaround Times

  • Initial screening: 1–7 days
  • Reviewer response time: Typically, 2–4 weeks per review round
  • Revision rounds: Timelines depend on the revision depth required

These times are approximate and may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

What Authors Should Expect

  • Confirmation of submission
  • Notification after initial screening
  • Communication of reviewer comments and required revisions
  • Transparency on the review stage and decision
  • Final proofreading before publication

Authors will not know the identity of their reviewers at any stage.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers invited by the journal are expected to:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript and review materials.
  • Provide an objective and constructive
  • Complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest or inability to review.
  • Evaluate the work based on academic merit and scientific integrity.

Reviewers must not use any information obtained through peer review for personal gain or research advantage.

Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts, reviewer comments, editorial decisions, and communications are confidential.
  • Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
  • Authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers.
  • Peer review materials are accessible only to the editorial team and reviewers directly involved.