Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Policy
CEERATJSD adheres strictly to its editorial and peer review protocols to maintain the integrity and quality of the publication. The editorial process ensures that:
- The manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims and scope.
- The research presented is original, innovative, and of high quality.
- The article follows the formatting and structural guidelines of CEERATJSD.
- Language use, including grammar, style, and composition, meets academic standards.
Peer Review Process
CEERATJSD employs a double-blind peer review system, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. A detailed outline of the review process is provided below:
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors can submit their manuscripts via the CEERATJSD Online Journal System (OJS) for consideration.
2. Initial Editorial Office Check
The editorial office conducts an initial screening to verify that the submission adheres to formatting requirements and falls within the scope of the journal. At this stage, the quality of the research is not evaluated.
3. Chief Editor's Assessment
The Chief Editor reviews the manuscript for originality, relevance, and potential contribution to the field. Manuscripts that do not meet these standards may be rejected without proceeding to peer review.
4. Assignment to Associate Editor
If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, the Chief Editor delegates it to an Associate Editor for further evaluation.
5. Desk Review by Associate Editor
The Associate Editor conducts a detailed review to assess the manuscript’s alignment with journal standards and provides recommendations for improvement.
6. Feedback to Authors
Authors receive the Associate Editor’s suggestions for revisions. Once revisions are incorporated, the manuscript proceeds to the external peer review stage.
7. Reviewer Invitation
Specialist reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript. The journal typically selects two reviewers and expects the review process to be completed within 2 to 4 weeks.
8. Review Process
Reviewers examine the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. They may recommend acceptance (with or without revisions), major revisions, or rejection based on their evaluation. Reviews are submitted to the editorial team along with recommendations.
9. Editorial Evaluation of Reviews
The editorial team reviews all feedback and recommendations from the reviewers. In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted to provide additional insight.
10. Communication of Decision
The editor informs the authors of the editorial decision via email, including detailed reviewer feedback and revision requests if applicable.
11. Final Decision
Upon receiving the revised manuscript, the editorial team evaluates whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers’ concerns. If necessary, further revisions may be requested, or the manuscript may be rejected if revisions are insufficient.
12. Editing and Proofreading
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout formatting, and proofreading to ensure linguistic and structural quality. Authors are provided with the final PDF version for review before publication.
13. Appeals Process
Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision may contact the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal will be reviewed along with reviewer comments. If warranted, the manuscript may be re-evaluated or sent to new reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision following an appeal is final. All appeals are acknowledged within two working days.
