REVIEW PROCEDURE

The Journal of Science Innovations and Nature of Earth (JSIANE) follows a structured, transparent, and double-blind peer-review procedure to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic value of published research.

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, manuscripts are screened by the Editorial Office to verify:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Compliance with author guidelines
• Originality and ethical standards
• Plagiarism check

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

Step 2: Assignment to Editor
Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor with expertise in the relevant subject area.

Step 3: Double-Blind Peer Review
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Reviewer and author identities are kept confidential. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, methodology, scientific quality, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance.

Step 4: Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers submit detailed reports and recommend one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Step 5: Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Handling Editor, makes the final decision based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment.

Step 6: Revision Process
Authors are required to:

• Address all reviewer comments systematically
• Submit a point-by-point response
• Resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers if necessary.

Step 7: Final Acceptance
Manuscripts accepted after satisfactory revision undergo final editorial checks before publication.

Step 8: Proofreading & Publication
Accepted articles are copy-edited, proofread, and published online in the upcoming issue according to the journal’s publication schedule.

Reviewer Guidelines
The Journal of Science Innovations and Nature of Earth (JSIANE) relies on expert reviewers to maintain the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Reviewers are expected to follow the guidelines below.

Role of Reviewers:
Reviewers are requested to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts based on their scholarly merit.

Review Criteria:
Reviewers should assess manuscripts on the basis of:

• Originality and significance of the research
• Scientific soundness and methodology
• Ethical compliance
• Clarity of presentation and structure
• Relevance to the journal’s scope

Confidentiality:
All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal advantage.

Conflict of Interest:
Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, or personal) and decline review if a conflict exists.

Review Reports:
Reviews should be clear, constructive, and respectful. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable. Comments should help authors improve the manuscript.

Timeliness:
Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the specified review period to ensure timely editorial decisions.

Editorial Workflow (Flowchart – Textual Representation):

Manuscript Submission
⬇
Initial Editorial Screening (Scope check, formatting, plagiarism screening)
⬇
Assignment to Handling Editor
⬇
Double-Blind Peer Review (At least two independent reviewers)
⬇
Reviewer Reports Received
⬇
Editorial Decision (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject)
⬇
Author Revision (if required)
⬇
Final Editorial Assessment
⬇
Acceptance
⬇
Copyediting & Proofreading
⬇
Online Publication
    

Time-to-Decision Statement (Average 45 Days):
JSIANE is committed to a timely and transparent editorial process:

• Initial editorial screening: within 5–7 days of submission
• Average peer-review duration: 2–4 weeks
• First decision (average): within 30 days of submission
• Final decision: dependent on satisfactory revision and editorial approval (average 45 days)

Efforts are made to minimize delays while maintaining rigorous peer review and academic quality.