Review Process
Review Process
Journal of Decision Science and Modeling (JDSM) implements a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of every manuscript submitted for publication. All manuscripts are evaluated by qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.
Peer Review Model
JDSM applies a Double-Blind Peer Review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This approach is intended to support objective, independent, and fair evaluation of submitted manuscripts.
Review Workflow
01
Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. The manuscript must comply with the journal's author guidelines, formatting requirements, and publication ethics policies.
02
Initial Editorial Screening
The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope and meets the basic requirements for academic quality, structure, formatting, and publication ethics.
03
Reviewer Assignment
Suitable reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise and the subject of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting the review assignment.
04
Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, methodological rigor, scientific contribution, relevance, clarity, references, and overall academic quality. Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to support the editorial decision.
05
Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editorial assessment, the editor makes a decision regarding the manuscript. Possible decisions include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
06
Revision
If revisions are required, authors must address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version within the specified period. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
07
Final Acceptance & Publication
Once the manuscript meets the journal's academic and editorial standards, it is formally accepted and proceeds to the final editing, typesetting, and publication stages.
Review Criteria
Originality
Novelty and originality of the research.
Methodology
Appropriateness and rigor of the research methods.
Scientific Contribution
Significance of the research contribution.
Clarity
Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
References
Quality, relevance, and adequacy of references.
Presentation
Quality of academic writing and presentation.
Editorial Decision Types
Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without major changes.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before acceptance.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required and the manuscript may undergo another review cycle.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements or is unsuitable for publication.
Confidentiality & Ethics
All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors are expected to maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and conduct the review process objectively and professionally in accordance with accepted publication ethics.
The review process and editorial policies may be updated periodically to maintain the quality, transparency, and integrity of the journal's publication process.
