Peer Review Policy


MIJST Journal employs a double-blind, external peer review policy, where both the authors and the reviewers remain unaware of each other's identities. This approach ensures an impartial and precise evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Double-Blind External Peer Review

Every manuscript submitted for publication will be subjected to a double-blind, external peer review process, involving a minimum of two peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant scholarly field. The journal is dedicated to ensuring a swift review procedure, aiming to deliver prompt decisions to authors from the moment of submission. Reviewers are provided with a strict timeline for manuscript evaluation, resulting in decisions being typically rendered in under three months in the majority of cases.

Peer Review Process

Upon manuscript submission, it undergoes an initial review by a member of the Editorial Board. If the manuscript successfully passes this editorial review, the section editor recommends potential reviewers for the double-blind peer review. Once reviewers are assigned, they assess the manuscript and offer their feedback to the section editor. MIJST Journal adheres to the OJS Workflow Chart to ensure the integrity and precision of the peer review process.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers will be chosen based on their expertise in the relevant field, their professional reputation, and our previous interactions with them. Invitations to review manuscripts, including the titles and abstracts, will be sent to reviewers electronically. Upon accepting the review request, reviewers will gain access to the assigned manuscripts for download and an online Review Form to submit their review feedback.

Reviewer’s Conflict of Interest

In every instance, reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest arising from the manuscript's content. Should a conflict of interest be present, reviewers are kindly asked to decline the review request.

Peer Review Time

The aim is to offer authors an efficient review process, with a "submission to first decision" timeline of under six weeks. We kindly ask our reviewers to assist us in minimizing the decision time by submitting their reviews in a timely manner. We understand the frustration authors may experience when waiting for extended periods to receive feedback on their manuscript. Therefore, we request our reviewers to promptly respond to messages from the Editors and inform us if they are unavailable for any significant duration.

Online Review Form

When a manuscript is sent to reviewers for evaluation, it will be accompanied by an online Review Form. Reviewers are kindly requested to use this form to provide their feedback. Utilizing this form not only saves time during the review but also ensures a structured and accurate assessment.

The Online Review Form consists of mainly three sections, 'General Comments on Manuscript', 'Comments to Authors', and 'Confidential Comments to Executive Editor'.

Any feedback written in the 'Comments to Authors' section will be conveyed to the authors. Reviewers can utilize the 'Confidential Comments to Executive Editors' section to send any confidential remarks to the Executive Editor, which will not be shared with the authors. Reviewers are also permitted to upload any necessary documents using the online Review Form.

The entire peer review process is to be completed online. However, if reviewers require any clarification during the process, they can reach out to the Executive Editor or Section Editors.

Peer Review Expectations

Reviewers are expected to provide a comprehensive assessment of the manuscript, addressing key aspects such as the study's concept, its relevance to current knowledge, content, language, and grammar. Reviewers will also be required to make a recommendation regarding whether the manuscript should be published, and provide well-founded reasons for their recommendations.

If it is deemed that the manuscript requires improvements before acceptance for publication, reviewers are encouraged to offer specific suggestions on how to enhance it. In the case of negative feedback, reviewers are kindly asked to help authors by explaining any shortcomings related to scientific or empirical content and language. It is essential to maintain a professional and respectful tone in all comments, as we do not tolerate offensive language. Please note that we reserve the right to edit reviewer comments for factual inaccuracies, language issues, or to remove any confidential information.

Peer Review Confidential

The review process involves confidential communication between the Reviewers, Editors, Editorial Staff, and the Corresponding Author. Reviewers are kindly requested not to discuss any manuscript received for review with individuals who are not directly engaged in the review process.

Decision on Manuscript

The Executive Editor will make a decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript based on the reviewer's comments. The possible decisions include, accepting the manuscript without revisions; inviting the authors to resubmit the manuscript after making either minor or major revisions while keeping the final decision pending; and rejecting the manuscript.

Once the manuscript review process is complete, the comments from both reviewers and editors will be shared with the author along with the editorial decision. If the authors are asked to resubmit the manuscript with changes and responses to the comments, we may send the revised manuscript and the author's responses to the reviewers for further review.

Privileges for Peer Reviewers

To show our gratitude for the invaluable services and the time spent on reviewing manuscripts, MIJST Journal is pleased to offer reviewers standard remuneration for each peer review completed within the specified timeframe. In addition, as an extra token of appreciation, we will acknowledge the reviewer's contributions in the Editorial Thanks section under the Editor's Note.


Editorial and Peer Review in Special Cases

In all cases, reviewers will be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest arising from the manuscript's content.

If a manuscript is submitted for publication by the Editor-in-Chief (who is also the author of the manuscript), a process of separation and anonymity will be followed. The Editor-in-Chief will assign the manuscript to the Executive Editor, who will then transfer it to one of the Associate Editors without disclosing this to the Editor-in-Chief. The Associate Editor will be responsible for all decisions regarding the manuscript and will convey the decision to the Editor-in-Chief (the author) through the Executive Editor. The Executive Editor will maintain the anonymity of the Associate Editor's identity from the Editor-in-Chief.

If a manuscript is submitted by a member of the Editorial Board, the identity of the handling editor will not be revealed to either the submitting editor (author of the manuscript) or the co-authors. Only the Editor-in-Chief and the Journal's editorial staff will have access to this information.

Likewise, if a manuscript is submitted by a current or past reviewer for the journal, the handling editor's name will not be disclosed to the submitting reviewer (author of the manuscript) or the co-authors. Only the Editor-in-Chief and the Journal's editorial staff will be aware of this information.

In the event that a manuscript is submitted by an author who has a familial or personal relationship with an editor (e.g., a friend or colleague), the manuscript will be assigned to another editor for handling to ensure impartiality and avoid any potential conflicts of interest.