Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Science Technology and Engineering Research (JOSTER) is committed to maintaining rigorous standards of academic excellence through a transparent, fair, and efficient peer review process. The journal employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

1. Peer Review Model: Double-Blind Review

In the double-blind process:

The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept anonymous.
Authors must remove all identifying information from their manuscripts before submission.
Reviewers are instructed not to attempt to identify the authors.

This approach ensures impartiality and minimizes potential conflicts of interest.

2. Review Process Overview

Initial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or section editors conduct an initial check for:
- Scope relevance
- Basic formatting
- Ethical compliance
- Plagiarism (using similarity detection software)
Reviewer Assignment
Suitable reviewers with relevant expertise are selected from JOSTER’s editorial board or external academic community. Each manuscript is typically reviewed by two to three reviewers.
Review Timeline
- Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within 2 to 4 weeks.
- Authors may be asked to revise the manuscript based on reviewer comments.
Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer feedback, the editor may make one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject

Authors are notified of the decision along with anonymous reviewer comments.

3. Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.
Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Refrain from using any unpublished data for personal gain.

4. Author Responsibilities During Review

Authors must:

Respond to reviewer comments thoroughly and respectfully.
Highlight all changes made in the revised manuscript.
Submit a detailed response letter explaining how comments were addressed.

5. Appeals and Disputes

Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit a formal appeal. Appeals must include a detailed justification and will be reviewed by the editorial board or an independent editor.

6. Ethical Oversight

JOSTER adheres to COPE’s guidelines for ethical peer review. Any cases of reviewer misconduct, such as breach of confidentiality or bias, are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.