Review Process
- JOTS uses double-anonymous peer review. Author and reviewer identities are concealed during review wherever practical.
- Editors screen submissions for scope, completeness, anonymisation, originality, research readiness, and ethics before peer review.
- Suitable research manuscripts are normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
- Reviewers are selected by the editorial team and must not have known conflicts of interest with the manuscript, authors, institutions, funders, or research topic.
- The handling editor or Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision after considering reviewer reports, journal fit, ethical compliance, originality, methodological quality, clarity, and contribution to the field.
- Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the final decision, and no acceptance is guaranteed.
- Decision outcomes are accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
Exceptions, Conflicts, Supplements, and Delays
Editors may desk reject submissions that are out of scope, incomplete, insufficiently anonymised, previously published, ethically deficient, or unlikely to meet the journal standard after review.
Submissions from editors, editorial board members, guest editors, or individuals with a close relationship to the journal are handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest. Such submissions follow the same peer-review standards as other manuscripts.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the journal is not obliged to use them. Authors may also identify reviewers they believe may have a conflict of interest; the editorial team will consider such requests but retains final responsibility for reviewer selection.
Supplementary material may be considered during peer review where it supports the scholarly claims of the manuscript. Special issue papers follow the same peer-review standards.
Reviewer reports are treated as confidential, are not published, and reviewers are not named unless a different arrangement is explicitly approved by the journal.
Authors are informed when review is delayed. Appeals must identify a procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or evidence that materially affects the decision.