Editorial Procedures and Peer-Review

After submitting the manuscript, the academic editor (Editor-in-Chief for standard submissions, Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board member in cases of a conflict of interest or standard submissions upon the Editor-in-Chief's approval) will be notified to conduct an initial editorial assessment. This initial review involves evaluating the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope and overall scientific quality, including the relevance of cited references and the accuracy of the methodology used. Based on this assessment, academic editors can either reject the manuscript outright, suggest revisions before peer review, or proceed to the peer review stage, recommending appropriate reviewers for a more detailed evaluation.

Peer-Review

Once a manuscript passes the initial screening, it will be sent to at least two independent experts for peer evaluation. The comments made during the peer review will be kept confidential and shared only with the reviewers' explicit consent.

Editorial Decision and Amendment Process

Every submission to SJAST journals, such as articles, reviews, and communications, undergoes a peer review process, receiving at least two evaluations. The in-house editor will communicate the academic editor's decision, which can be one of the following:

Accepted with/without Minor Amendments

The manuscript has been tentatively approved, pending minor adjustments suggested by the reviewers.

Reevaluation after Significant Amendments

The manuscript's acceptance depends on making essential revisions. The authors must address each reviewer's comments or provide a counterargument for any feedback that can't be accommodated. Usually, the manuscript may need to go through two rounds of significant revisions. Authors should submit their revised manuscript within a specified timeframe, after which the reviewers will review it again for further feedback. If the expected revision period is longer than two months, authors are advised to withdraw and resubmit their manuscript to allow for thorough revision without time constraints.

Rejection with an Option for Resubmission

The manuscript that requires further experimentation to support its conclusions will be rejected. Authors are encouraged to resubmit after gathering additional evidence.

Reject

The article has serious flaws and does not make a significant original contribution. There is no offer to resubmit to the journal. All reviewer comments should be responded to point-by-point. If the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must react clearly.