Review Policy
This policy defines the rules that govern peer review at JACOBS. It ensures that every manuscript receives a fair, competent, confidential, and timely evaluation.
1. Peer Review Model
JACOBS uses double-blind peer review. Authors must remove all identifying information from the manuscript and file properties. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors. Editors know the identities of both parties and are responsible for maintaining anonymity.
2. Selection of Reviewers
- Reviewers are selected for their expertise in the topic and methods of the manuscript, as shown by their publication record.
- Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as any author and must not have collaborated with any author in the previous three years.
- Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers. Reviewers from different institutions, and where possible different countries, are preferred.
- Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers and may request the exclusion of specific individuals, with reasons. The editor is not obliged to use suggested reviewers and will not rely only on them.
3. Editorial Decisions
Reviewers advise; the editors decide. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who considers the reviewers' reports, the associate editor's recommendation, and the journal's policies. When reviewers disagree, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or make a reasoned judgment.
| Decision | OJS option | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Accept Submission | The manuscript is accepted as it is, apart from copyediting. |
| Minor revision | Request Revisions (no new review round) | Limited changes are needed; the revision is checked by the editor. |
| Major revision | Request Revisions (resubmit for review) | Substantial changes are needed; the revision is sent back to the reviewers. |
| Reject | Decline Submission | The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JACOBS. Reasons are given to the authors. |
4. Confidentiality
Manuscripts and review reports are confidential. Reviewers and editors may not share, cite, or use the content of a manuscript before publication, and may not upload it to AI tools or other external services.
5. Timeliness
Reviewers are asked to respond to an invitation within five days and to complete their review within 21 days. If a review is not received within the agreed time, the editor may invite another reviewer.
6. Appeals
Authors who believe that a decision was based on a factual error or a misunderstanding may appeal once, within 30 days of the decision, by writing to the Editor-in-Chief at journal.nalatama@gmail.com. The appeal must respond specifically to the reasons for the decision. It is evaluated by an editor who was not involved in the original decision and who may consult additional reviewers. The outcome of the appeal is final. Disagreement with the reviewers' opinions alone is not grounds for an appeal.
7. Resubmission of Rejected Manuscripts
A rejected manuscript may be resubmitted only if the decision letter explicitly invites resubmission. It is treated as a new submission, and the cover letter must explain how the previous concerns have been addressed.
8. Submissions from the Editorial Team
Manuscripts by editors or editorial board members undergo the same double-blind review, handled by an editor without any conflict of interest. See Conflict of Interest.
9. Transparency and Recognition
The dates of receipt, revision, acceptance, and publication are shown on each article. Reviewers receive a certificate for each completed review and are listed on the Reviewer page.
