All manuscripts will be initially assessed by the editors for suitability for the journal. Authors are responsible for the use of appropriate written language and writing format. If the manuscript meets the JARS’s requirements, the peer-review stage can be proceeded.

DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW 

JARS operates a double blind review process meaning that identities of the peers are concealed from the authors, and vice versa.

NUMBER OF PEER-REVIEWERS 

All manuscripts will be anonymously evaluated with the double-blind review by a minimum of 2 peer-reviewers to assess the quality of the paper. If one peers, the 3^rdpeer-reviewers may be invited to make the final decision along with the JARS's editors. After finishing peer review process, our editorial team will take charge and provide additional comments where is neccessary. The editors will be responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles.  

PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

Prior to sending the submission for full peer review, the editorial management team will conduct similarity, plagiarism, and Generative Artificial Intelligence checks using Crossref and Turnitin. Once the manuscript is determined to be an original submission, the Editor-in-Chief and Associate-Editor-in-Chief will perform a desk review to ensure the manuscript’s content and formatting are consistent with journal focus and style. If the manuscript passes the desk review, a formal decision to proceed with peer-review will be made and the submission will be assigned to a content editor on the editorial board. If the Editor-in-Chief and Associate-Editor-in-Chief conclude that the manuscript is deficient in content or style, the manuscript will be returned to the authors with a rejection or a revision notification that explains the decision and possible revision and resubmission options. The content editor for the assigned manuscript is responsible for identifying appropriate peer reviewers. Each manuscript will undergo a double-blind peer review with a minimum of three reviewers. The authors will be asked to recommend three reviewers and also indicate any reviewers that should not be assigned. The content editor may use a maximum of one reviewer nominated by the authors.  Should the editor deem that there is sufficient conflicting opinion in the reviews submitted by the referees, they may seek additional reviews.

The reviewers are instructed to provide full and constructive comments that can meaningfully assist authors to improve their manuscripts. The content editor will synthesize the manuscript reviews and provide a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief and Associate-Editor-in-Chief who will make a final decision of Reject, Tentatively Accept after Major Revisions, Tentatively Accept after Minor Revisions, Accept in Present Form.

The editors reserve all rights to revise any paper, and/or return to the author for the revision.