To ensure the highest level of academic integrity and objectivity, the Academic Research Journal of Science and Technology (ARJST) employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process. This page explains our commitment to quality control and what authors and reviewers can expect.

🛡️ Peer Review Policy

At ARJST, we believe that the quality of a journal is defined by the rigor of its review process. Our policy is designed to eliminate bias and ensure that every paper is judged solely on its scientific and intellectual merit.

🕵️ What is Double-Blind Peer Review?

In a double-blind process:

  1. The Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

  2. The Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

This “blindness” prevents personal or institutional reputation from influencing the evaluation, allowing the focus to remain entirely on the research data and arguments.

⚙️ The Review Workflow

Every manuscript submitted to ARJST undergoes the following journey:

  1. Initial Editorial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) checks the paper for scope fit and plagiarism.

  2. Technical Check: Our support staff ensures the manuscript is properly anonymized (See our Blinding Guide).

  3. Expert Assignment: The EiC or an Associate Editor assigns the paper to at least two independent subject matter experts.

  4. Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers assess the paper based on originality, methodology, and clarity (See our Reviewer Guidelines).

  5. Editorial Decision: Based on the reviews, the EiC makes one of four decisions:

    • ✅ Accept (No changes required)

    • 📝 Minor Revision (Small changes needed)

    • 🛠️ Major Revision (Significant structural or data changes needed)

    • ❌ Reject (Not suitable for publication)

⏱️ Timelines & Transparency

We value the time of our contributors. Our goal is to provide a final decision within 6–8 weeks of submission.

  • Initial Screening: 5 business days.

  • Peer Review: 4 weeks.

  • Final Decision: 1 week after reviews are received.

⚖️ Ethical Obligations

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. They are not permitted to share or use the data before publication.

  • Objectivity: Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation.

  • Constructive Feedback: We encourage reviewers to provide “Critical but Kind” feedback to help authors improve their work.

🔗 Essential Links