Journal policies

Peer Review Policy

Every research article in ARJST is reviewed double-blind by at least two independent experts.

Last reviewed: October 2026 · ARJST · ISSN 3048-9644 (Online)

Review model

ARJST uses double-blind peer review: reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. To make this possible authors submit two files – an anonymised manuscript and a separate title page (see the author guidelines).

The review process

Technical check

Editorial support confirms the files are complete and fully anonymised.

Editorial screening

The editor checks scope, quality, ethics and text similarity.

Reviewer assignment

A handling editor invites at least two independent experts.

Peer review

Reviewers assess the manuscript and submit written reports.

Decision

The Editor-in-Chief decides on the basis of the reports.

Revision

Authors revise and respond point by point; re-review if needed.

Selection of reviewers

Reviewers hold a doctorate or equivalent research experience in the subject of the manuscript.
Each research article is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.
Reviewers must not be from the same institution as any author, nor have co-authored with an author in the last three years.
Reviewers declare any competing interest before accepting an invitation.
Authors may suggest reviewers, but the editor is not obliged to use them and never relies on them alone.

Evaluation criteria

Originality and contribution to knowledge
Relevance to the aims and scope
Soundness of methodology and analysis
Validity of conclusions drawn from the evidence
Clarity of writing and structure
Adequacy and accuracy of references
Compliance with ethical standards

Editorial decisions

Decision	What it means
Accept	Publication without further changes, after copy-editing
Minor revision	Small changes checked by the editor
Major revision	Substantial changes; the revised paper normally returns to the reviewers
Reject	Not suitable for publication in ARJST

Where reviewers disagree, the editor may invite an additional reviewer. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Timelines

Stage	Target
Initial screening	5 business days
Peer review	About 4 weeks
Submission to first decision	6–8 weeks
Acceptance to publication	Next available monthly issue

Editors’ own submissions

Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief, editors or board members are handled by another editor with no conflict of interest and follow the same double-blind process. Such papers will not exceed 25% of the research articles in any issue.

Special issues

Special-issue papers go through exactly the same external double-blind review, under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief. See the special issues policy.

Confidentiality and AI

Manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share them or upload them to generative AI tools. See the generative AI policy.

Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was based on an error may appeal within 30 days by writing to editor@ngmc.ac.in with a reasoned explanation. Appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision. The outcome of an appeal is final.

Further guidance: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Publish with ARJST – free of charge

Double-blind peer review, Crossref DOIs and permanent open access. No submission or publication fees.