Peer Review Policy

Peer-Review Process

The Journal of Recent Innovation in Science and Technology(JRIST) is a peer-reviewed academic journal committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing. All manuscripts undergo a rigorous and fair evaluation process to ensure quality, originality, and academic integrity.

Peer Reviewer Policy

JRIST follows a double-blind peer review  where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and are expected to provide unbiased, constructive, and ethical feedback. Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality and must not share, store, or upload the manuscript to any third-party platforms, including AI-based tools, due to privacy, confidentiality, and data protection requirements.

All reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if they cannot provide an objective evaluation. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer recommendations and overall manuscript quality.

1. Manuscript Submission

The author submits a manuscript to the journal, typically through an online or email submission system. The manuscript must adhere to the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.

2. Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor conducts an initial screening to ensure that:

  • The topic fits within the journal’s scope.
  • The manuscript meets quality standards (e.g., novelty, structure, language).
  • There are no ethical concerns such as plagiarism or data manipulation.

If the paper fails this stage, it is desk-rejected (without peer review).

3. Reviewer Selection

The editor assigns the manuscript to two expert reviewers based on their subject expertise. Reviewers are typically researchers or academics in the same field as the submitted work.

4. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Scientific validity
  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Significance and clarity
  • Appropriateness of references and methodology

Each reviewer provides a detailed report that includes:

  • Comments for the editor
  • Comments for the author
  • A recommendation (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject)

5. Editorial Decision

The editor carefully considers all reviewer comments and makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The decision, along with reviewer comments, is communicated to the author.

6. Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are required, the author must:

  • Revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments.
  • Provide a detailed response to each reviewer’s feedback.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.

7. Final Decision

After all necessary revisions and re-reviews, the editor makes a final decision. If accepted, the manuscript moves to the production stage.

8. Publication

The accepted article is formatted, proofread, and published online with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

Note: The manuscript review process typically takes around 4 weeks from the time the reviewer accepts the review invitation.