Peer Review Policy

The peer review process is fundamental to ensuring that only high-quality manuscripts are published. As a cornerstone of credible scholarly publishing, this objective evaluation is a key feature of all esteemed scientific journals. At JACTA, our reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining our publication’s standards.

Every manuscript submitted undergoes a double-blind peer review, meaning the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential. Typically, at least two independent reviewers assess each manuscript. If needed, further expert opinions may be sought. Reviewers are expected to comply with JACTA’s Publication Ethics & Malpractice Policy and are encouraged to refer to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Editorial staff must remain alert to any signs of ethical misconduct and report any concerns to the editorial board immediately.

Peer Review Workflow

The review process initiates with the Managing Editor, who checks each submission for compliance with our Submission Guidelines. If there are issues, authors may be asked to revise their manuscript before further consideration.

Once deemed suitable, the Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims, quality benchmarks, and relevance. If appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a Section Editor with relevant expertise.

The Section Editor decides if the manuscript is ready for peer review. If approved, reviewers are selected based on subject matter and methodological relevance. In certain cases, the Editorial Advisory Board may also be consulted for additional insights.

After receiving the reviewers’ comments, the Section Editor provides a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final publication decision, potentially after additional editorial input.

Competing Interests

If a reviewer identifies any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality, they should immediately inform the editors and withdraw from the review process. Conflicts can include financial interests, professional relationships, or personal affiliations that might influence the review outcome. Reviewers must declare any such conflicts to preserve the transparency and objectivity of the process.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must treat all manuscript content—abstracts, data, and ideas—with strict confidentiality. This information should not be shared or used for personal benefit. During the double-blind review, both authors and reviewers must take care not to reveal their identities through content or metadata.

Timeliness

Timely reviews are critical to maintaining an efficient publication cycle. Reviewers are asked to submit their reports within the agreed timeframe. If delays are anticipated, they should notify the editorial team promptly to arrange an extension.

Please note that the full review and publication process may take up to 4 months. However, delays may occur depending on reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, and the response times from authors.