Peer review process

The Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology (JKLST) conducts a rigorous peer-review process to ensure that manuscripts meet high scientific and practical standards.

Initial Assessment

Scientific articles submitted through the Open Journal System platform are initially assessed by the executive editor for adherence to the formatting requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines. To expedite the process for authors and reviewers, only papers with the potential to meet our editorial standards proceed to formal review. Papers deemed of limited general interest or otherwise unsuitable are promptly declined without external review.

Formal Review

Manuscripts deemed potentially relevant to our readership undergo formal review, typically by two or more reviewers, especially if specialized expertise is required (e.g., in statistics or specific techniques).

Double-Blind Review

The journal employs a double-blind review process:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s) of the article.
  • Author(s) are unaware of the identity of the reviewer(s).

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are instructed to:

  • Assess the manuscript's relevance, both in theory and practice.
  • Identify any significant similarities with previously published work and evaluate the accuracy of citations.
  • Evaluate the incorporation of the latest industry advancements relevant to the article.
  • Assess the validity of research methods and experimental calculations (in the case of experimental articles).
  • Determine the alignment of conclusions with existing scientific knowledge.
  • Provide well-grounded justifications for their assessments.
  • Evaluate the contribution of each author to problem-solving.
  • Assess the logical organization and scientific style of the manuscript, ensuring authenticity and validity of conclusions.
  • Submit their reviews in a timely manner.
  • Refrain from using or disclosing unpublished information from the manuscript without explicit author consent.

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer feedback, the editors make one of several decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript requires only minor revisions and can be published without further content changes.
  • Minor Revisions Required: The authors need to make moderate changes based on reviewer recommendations. Once addressed, the manuscript is suitable for publication.
  • Major Revisions Required: The manuscript cannot be accepted in its current form, but a substantial revision addressing all reviewer concerns may lead to acceptance.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current state and offers little potential for improvement.
  • Send to Another Journal: The subject matter may be better suited to a different publication.

Further reviewer input may be sought, particularly in cases of conflicting opinions or if authors feel their work has been misunderstood. Reviewers are expected to be available for follow-up assessments as needed.

Communication with Authors

Following the review process, relevant information is communicated to the author. Authors have 2-5 weeks to revise and submit the updated version. Failure to do so within this timeframe results in removal from consideration.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewer selection is a crucial aspect of the publication process. We consider factors like expertise, reputation, recommendations, and prior interactions with reviewers. We avoid individuals known for being slow, inattentive, or lacking substantive feedback.

We seek consent from potential reviewers before sending manuscripts. Reviewers are reminded to treat this communication as confidential.

Writing the Review

Reviews serve to guide editors' decisions and instruct authors on how to enhance their paper for potential acceptance. Negative feedback should outline major weaknesses to provide rejected authors with a clear understanding of what needs improvement for future submission.

Reports should thoroughly justify statements, citing evidence and referencing relevant literature. Reviewers should address all pertinent aspects of the manuscript within their expertise, adhering to discipline-specific standards.

Anonymity

To uphold transparency, the journal employs double-blind peer reviewing. Authors' identities remain concealed from reviewers, and authors are responsible for appropriately anonymizing their manuscript.

Appeal Process

If an author disagrees with specific reviewer comments, they may submit a "notes of reviewer - comment of author" document for consideration. This document is reviewed by the editor, and a decision regarding the manuscript is reached in consultation with the reviewer.

In cases where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations (accept/reject), an independent expert is appointed by the editor to assist in the decision-making process.