Peer Review Process

At JFATWA, we adhere to rigorous standards of scholarly integrity and fairness through our Double-Blind Review process. This method is foundational to our manuscript submission and evaluation protocol, designed to provide an unbiased and comprehensive assessment of each submission.

  1. Manuscript Submission: Researchers submit their scholarly manuscripts to JFATWA. Upon receipt, the Editor in Chief assigns the manuscript to the Managing Editor, who is responsible for its preliminary evaluation.
  2. Initial Evaluation: The Managing Editor, together with the editorial team, conducts an initial assessment. The manuscript may be directly accepted, rejected, or moved forward to the peer review stage. each manuscript undergoes a plagiarism assessment using Turnitin to ensure originality.
  3. Peer Review Assignment: The Managing Editor appoints at least two subject matter experts to review the manuscript. This review is performed under a double-blind protocol, safeguarding the anonymity of both reviewers and authors. Reviewers utilize a standardized form provided by the JFATWA to facilitate their evaluations.
  4. Reviewer Feedback: The Editor in Chief communicates the results of the review process to the author, which may be an approval, a request for revisions, or a rejection, while maintaining the anonymity of the reviewers.
  5. Manuscript Revision: Should revisions be necessary, authors are instructed to refine their manuscript based on the feedback received. They are also encouraged to submit a letter detailing their responses to the reviewers' comments and the amendments made.
  6. Resubmission of Revised Manuscript: Authors resubmit the revised manuscript through the same submission channel as originally used. The manuscript is then re-evaluated to verify that all suggested modifications have been satisfactorily addressed.
  7. Final Review and Acceptance: Upon satisfactory revision, the Editor in Chief informs the author of the manuscript’s acceptance for publication.
  8. Appeals: Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed rationale for reconsideration. The editorial team, along with the initial or additional reviewers, reviews such appeals thoroughly.
  9. Confidentiality and Ethics: The entire review process is conducted with strict confidentiality to protect the privacy of both authors and reviewers. Reviewers are obligated to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and to uphold the secrecy of the manuscripts they evaluate.