For reviewers

This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in peer review process of the journal. All of the journal's contents including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.

Single blind peer review

JAST operates a single-blind peer review system, where the reviews are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous. The benefit of single-blind peer review is that it is the traditional model of peer review that many reviewers are comfortable with, and it facilitates a dispassionate critique of a manuscript.

The role of reviewers

A peer reviewer’s role is to advise the editors on the revision, acceptance, or rejection of an individual manuscript. Judgments should be objective, and comments should be lucidly written. Scientific soundness is the most important principle of the journal; therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be meticulously considered. The use of reporting guidelines is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest. Reviewers should specify any relevant published work which has not yet been cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The editorial board is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers’ recommendations.

How to become a reviewer

Reviewers are typically invited by the editorial office or recommended by authors. Anyone who wants to volunteer as a reviewer can contact the editorial office at https://www.ejast.org/info/contact.

When invited by the editorial office to review a manuscript

Reviewers recommended by the authors are usually invited to review the corresponding manuscripts. Authors may recommend reviewers from their institutions. We advise potential reviewers not to decline the invitation to review solely because the authors are acquaintances or from the same institution; we welcome reviewers who know the authors and who may comment with particular attentiveness and warmth. If review comments cannot be submitted within the 14-day review period, please decline to review or request an extension of the review period. If no review comment has been made within 7 days after review acceptance, the reviewer will be sent a notice.

How to write review comments

After accessing the e-submission system using your ID and password, please download the PDF files and supplementary files. It is not necessary to comment on the style and format; rather, concentrate on the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results.

Comments to authors

Summarize the entire content of the manuscript in a single sentence.

Please include specific comments, structured in the order of the sections of the manuscript. It is useful for review comments to refer to specific pages. The reviewer’s recommendation of acceptance, revision, or rejection should not be included in the comment to the authors. Consider whether the peer review opinion may increase the quality of the manuscript or of further research by the author.

Comment to the editor

We recommend speaking to both the strength and the concision of the manuscript. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance, revision, rejection, or concern may be provided here, including any special opinions directed toward the editor.

Ethical guidelines for reviewers

1. Reviewers must treat as confidential all manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports, and any information encountered during the editorial and peer review process. Reviewers must not enter or upload the submitted manuscript, in whole or in part, or any confidential information concerning the manuscript or its authors into external generative AI tools or similar automated systems. Scholarly judgment, critical evaluation, and final assessment required for peer review must remain under human responsibility, and reviewers bear full responsibility for the accuracy and appropriateness of the review reports they submit. Unless explicitly permitted by the journal, generative AI must not be used in the preparation or revision of peer review reports.

2. Please inform the editor of any conflicts of interest, including the following:

• Reviewer is a competitor.
• Reviewer may have an antipathy with the author(s).
• Reviewer may profit financially from the work.
• In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed.
• A history of previous collaboration with the authors or any intimate relationship with the authors does not prohibit the review.

3. Reviewer should not use any material or data originated from the manuscript in review; however, it is possible to use open data of the manuscript after publication.

Post-review work by the editorial office

Review opinions and decisions may be analyzed by the editorial office without identifying the reviewer.