The International Journal of Science and Technology (IJST) follows a double-blind peer review process to maintain the quality, objectivity, and integrity of published research. In this process, the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other during the review.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of their originality, scientific quality, relevance, methodology, clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field of science and technology.

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team.

At this stage, the manuscript is checked for:

• Relevance to the journal’s Aim & Scope
• Compliance with Author Guidelines
• Completeness of the submission
• Originality and plagiarism
• Academic and scientific quality
• Ethical and publication requirements

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the scope of the journal, contain serious ethical concerns, or do not meet the basic publication requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

If minor submission or formatting issues are identified, the manuscript may be returned to the author for correction before peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are sent to suitable reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.

IJST follows a double-blind review system in which:

• Reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities.
• Authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.
• Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts independently, objectively, and confidentially.

Where appropriate, manuscripts may be evaluated by more than one reviewer.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers generally evaluate manuscripts on the basis of:

• Originality and significance of the research
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Clarity of research objectives
• Appropriateness of research methodology
• Quality and reliability of data and analysis
• Interpretation and discussion of results
• Organization and clarity of the manuscript
• Relevance and adequacy of references
• Ethical compliance, where applicable
• Overall contribution to the relevant field

Reviewers should provide constructive comments that can assist both the editor in making a decision and the author in improving the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial changes.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is generally suitable for publication but requires limited corrections or clarification.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial changes before it can be considered further.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic, scientific, ethical, or editorial standards, or is unsuitable for the journal’s scope.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the journal’s editorial team.

5. Editorial Decision

The editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, journal policies, and other relevant academic and ethical factors before making a decision.

The author may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accepted
• Revision Required
• Rejected

The editorial team may also seek an additional review where reviewer recommendations differ significantly or where further expert assessment is considered necessary.

6. Revision Process

If revisions are requested, the author should carefully address the comments provided by the reviewers and editors and submit a revised manuscript within the specified period.

Where requested, authors should also provide a response explaining how the reviewer comments have been addressed.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not automatically guarantee acceptance.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be:

• Assessed directly by the editor, or
• Returned to the original or another reviewer for further evaluation.

7. Final Decision

After the required revisions and evaluations have been completed, the editor makes the final decision regarding publication.

A manuscript may still be rejected after revision if:

• Important reviewer comments have not been adequately addressed
• Serious academic or ethical concerns remain
• The revised manuscript does not meet the journal’s publication standards

Once the manuscript satisfies the journal’s academic, ethical, and editorial requirements, it may be accepted for publication.

8. Production and Author Proof

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the publication and production stage.

Where applicable, authors may be asked to review the final proof to identify typographical, formatting, or production-related errors.

The proof stage is intended primarily for correcting production errors and should not normally be used to make substantial changes to the research, authorship, results, or conclusions.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All manuscripts and review materials must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.

Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed. Reviewers who are unable to provide an impartial assessment should decline the review assignment.

Commitment to Quality

The peer-review process of the International Journal of Science and Technology (IJST) is designed to support fair editorial decisions, improve the quality of submitted manuscripts, and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal is committed to ensuring that published articles meet appropriate standards of academic quality, originality, relevance, and ethical research practice.