Reviewer Guidelines

1. The Refereeing System

1.1 Duties of Reviewers

  • Maintain quality: Help the editors uphold the scientific and editorial standards of JSAS. 

  • Constructive criticism: Provide clear, actionable feedback that improves authors’ work. 

  • Expertise recognition: Reviewers are selected for authoritative subject expertise relevant to the manuscript. 

  • Independent reviews: Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent reviewers; if assessments diverge substantially, a third review may be sought.

  • Timely response: Please acknowledge invitations promptly and aim to submit reviews within the specified period (usually 7 days to accept/decline the request, with review due dates set by the editor). If you cannot meet a deadline, inform the editor immediately so timelines can be adjusted. 

1.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential; unpublished ideas/data must not be shared or used.

  • Anonymity: Reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors to support unbiased evaluations (double-blind workflow).

2. Identifying and Selecting Reviewers

2.1 Qualities of a Good Reviewer

  • Expertise & objectivity in the topic area

  • No conflicts of interest (declare any potential COIs; recuse when needed)

  • Good judgment & clear writing to assess novelty, rigor, and impact

  • Accuracy & timeliness in delivering the review

2.2 Reviewer Database & Monitoring

  • The editors maintain a database of qualified peer reviewers and monitor performance (quality and timeliness). Abusive or low-quality reviews are not tolerated.

3. A Fair Peer-Review Process

3.1 Minimizing Bias

  • Blinded review to reduce bias

  • Multiple referees for research/review articles

  • Consistent standards across submissions

  • Confidential discussions among authors, editors, and reviewers unless consent or exceptional circumstances apply

3.2 Editorial Independence

  • Unbiased decisions free from external pressure

  • Recusal for conflicts: Editors/board members are excluded from decisions on their own work 

4. Authors’ Right to Appeal

4.1 Appeal Process

  • The editor mediates exchanges between authors and reviewers

  • Additional reviewers may be invited if consensus cannot be reached

  • The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board 

5. Checklists for Reviewers

5.1 Scientific Focus and Standards

  • Importance & novelty: Is the contribution significant and original?

  • Title & abstract: Do they accurately reflect the study?

  • Objectives: Are aims clearly stated?

  • Methods/experiments: Are materials, methods, models, and analyses appropriate and sufficiently described? 

5.2 Editorial and Formatting

  • Length & structure: Does the manuscript follow the journal’s structure and length guidance?

  • Writing quality: Is the text clear, coherent, and grammatically sound?

6. Writing the Comments

6.1 Constructive Feedback

  • Clear, concise, accurate: Provide specific guidance (what to revise, why, and how).

  • Actionable suggestions: Recommend analyses, clarifications, or additional data only when necessary and feasible.

6.2 Confidentiality & Ethics

  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.

  • Avoid misuse: Do not use or share manuscript content prior to publication; avoid any actions that could confer personal or competitive advantage.