Peer Review Process
J3L implements a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality and integrity of all published articles. This process involves multiple stages to evaluate the originality, significance, methodology, and clarity of the submitted work.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
- All submissions are first screened by the editorial team for scope, structure, and originality.
- Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria (e.g., formatting, plagiarism threshold) are returned to authors.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
- Eligible manuscripts are sent to two independent reviewers anonymously.
- Authors and reviewers remain blinded to each other's identity throughout the process.
- Reviewers assess the manuscript based on academic merit, methodology, novelty, and relevance.
3. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:
- Accept Submission
- Minor Revisions Required
- Major Revisions Required
- Reject Submission
4. Editorial Decision
- Editors evaluate reviewer comments and make a final decision.
- In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted.
- Authors receive detailed feedback along with the editorial decision.
5. Revision and Resubmission
- Authors are required to revise their manuscripts based on reviewer feedback.
- Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for re-evaluation if necessary.
✅ 6. Final Decision and Publication
- Once the manuscript meets all quality criteria, it is accepted for publication.
- The final version is copyedited, proofread, and scheduled for online publication.
Average review time: 4–6 weeks | All articles are subject to ethical compliance checks prior to publication.
