Peer Review Policy

Sana’a University Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology (SUJAST) is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly publication. The integrity and quality of our published content are ensured through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. This document outlines the detailed procedures and principles that govern this critical function of the journal.

1. Type of Review: Double-Blind Peer Review

SUJAST employs a double-blind peer-review system. This means:

• The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
• The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
  This model is designed to minimize potential bias, promote objective and candid evaluations, and ensure that manuscripts are judged solely on their intellectual and scientific merit.

2. The Review Process: Step-by-Step

1. Initial Editorial Check: Upon submission, the Editorial Office performs an initial check for completeness, adherence to the journal's scope and formatting guidelines, and screening for plagiarism.
2. Editor-in-Chief (EIC) Assignment: The EIC assesses the manuscript's suitability and assigns it to an Associate Editor (AE) with relevant subject expertise.
3. Invitation to Reviewers: The AE selects at least two independent, external reviewers who are experts in the manuscript's specific field. Reviewers are chosen based on their publication record, expertise, and lack of conflicts of interest.
4. Review Period: Reviewers are given a specific timeframe (typically 3-4 weeks) to submit their detailed assessments.
5. Decision Recommendation: Based on the reviewers' reports, the AE makes a recommendation to the EIC (e.g., Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).
6. Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on the manuscript, considering the AE's recommendation and the reviewers' comments. This decision is communicated to the corresponding author along with the anonymized reviewers' reports.

3. Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on, but not limited to, the following criteria:

• Originality and Novelty: Does the work present new and significant findings?
• Scientific Rigor: Is the methodology sound, appropriate, and clearly described? Are the data robust and analyzed correctly?
• Academic Relevance: Does the work contribute meaningfully to the field? Is the research question important?
• Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and logically presented?
• References: Are citations appropriate, current, and accurate?

4. Possible Decisions

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current or with very minor editorial corrections.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript is provisionally accepted pending specific, straightforward corrections and clarifications addressed by the author. It is usually reviewed again by the AE.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial corrections, additional analysis, or rewriting. A revised version will be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication. Specific reasons for rejection are provided to aid the author.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities & Ethics

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the information from an unpublished manuscript for their own advantage.
• Objectivity: Reviews should be constructive, unbiased, and based solely on academic merit.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their review within the agreed timeframe or promptly notify the editor if they cannot.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (professional, financial, or personal) and decline the invitation if a conflict exists.

6. Author Responsibilities in Revision

Authors are expected to:

• Address all points raised by reviewers and the editor in a point-by-point response letter.
• Highlight all changes made in the revised manuscript.
• Submit the revised version within the stipulated deadline.

7. Appeals Process

Authors who believe a rejection decision resulted from a significant error or misunderstanding may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must provide a detailed, scientific rationale. The EIC's decision on the appeal is final.

8. Our Commitment

We are committed to a timely, respectful, and constructive peer-review process that serves our primary goal: advancing and disseminating high-quality scientific knowledge.

9. Contact

For questions related to the peer-review process or the status of a submitted manuscript, please contact the editorial office at: [editor.sujast@su.edu.ye].