Sana'a University Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology

A peer-reviewed, open-access journal publishing high-quality research in applied sciences and technology

ISSN 2958-9568 (Online) Monthly Publication Established 2023 Cite Score (2024-2025) = 2

SUJAST

Peer Review Policy

Ensuring integrity and quality through rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review

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.

Double-Blind Peer Review

SUJAST employs a double-blind peer-review system. 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.

Author Anonymity The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers throughout the review process.

Reviewer Anonymity The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors, ensuring candid and unbiased feedback.

Objective Evaluation Manuscripts are judged solely on their intellectual and scientific merit, free from personal or institutional bias.

The Review Process: Step-by-Step

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.

Editor-in-Chief Assignment

The EIC assesses the manuscript's suitability and assigns it to an Associate Editor (AE) with relevant subject expertise.

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.

Review Period

Reviewers are given a specific timeframe to submit their detailed assessments.

Typical timeframe: 3-4 weeks

Decision Recommendation

Based on the reviewers' reports, the AE makes a recommendation to the EIC (e.g., Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).

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.

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? Is it a substantial contribution to the field?

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 and well-defined?

Clarity and Structure

Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and logically presented? Is it accessible to the target audience?

References

Are citations appropriate, current, and accurate? Is the literature review comprehensive and relevant?

Possible Decisions

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form or with very minor editorial corrections.

Minor Revisions

The manuscript is provisionally accepted pending specific, straightforward corrections and clarifications. 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.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication. Specific reasons for rejection are provided to aid the author.

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. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

Timeliness

Reviewers should complete their review within the agreed timeframe or promptly notify the editor if they cannot meet the deadline.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (professional, financial, or personal) and decline the invitation if a conflict exists.

Author Responsibilities in Revision

Point-by-Point Response

Address all points raised by reviewers and the editor in a detailed point-by-point response letter.

Highlight Changes

Clearly highlight all changes made in the revised manuscript to facilitate the review process.

Meet Deadlines

Submit the revised version within the stipulated deadline to ensure timely processing of the manuscript.

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 and will be communicated to the author within 4 weeks of receipt.

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