Peer-review Process
Once your manuscript has been screened by the editors for its suitability in terms of aim, scope, and technical requirements, it will then be assessed by relevant referees/reviewers. J-AGT uses a double-blind peer review process, meaning that the identities of both authors and reviewers are hidden. The reviewer receives a double-blind review manuscript from the section editor. At least two independent reviewers are assigned to thoroughly assess each article. If not in accordance with his/her competence, the reviewer has the right to reject the manuscript and recommend it to other reviewers who are more competent. The reviewer assesses the manuscript from the writing quality and substantial aspects, which include the novelty, authenticity, usefulness, validity of citation, and bibliography. This process probably takes 4 weeks or more. Once the revision is sent to the authors, they must revise it within 7 or 14 days. The extension period of revision, if any, should be requested by the authors with reasonable reasons. The final decision of article acceptance will be announced to the author by the editor of J-AGT based on the reviewers’ comments.
Editorial and Peer-Review Workflow
0. Pre-Submission
Responsible: Desk Editor
Before formal submission, authors are encouraged to ensure that their manuscript complies with the journal’s basic requirements. At this stage, a pre-submission check may be conducted by the Desk Editor, focusing on:
similarity and originality screening (e.g., Turnitin or AI similarity check),
basic compliance with author guidelines,
confirmation of required ethical statements and declarations.
This step is intended to minimize administrative issues and reduce delays during the formal editorial screening stage.
1. Manuscript Submission
Responsible: Author
Authors initiate the publication process by submitting their manuscript through the journal’s online submission system. At this stage, authors are required to upload all mandatory files, including the main manuscript, supplementary materials (if any), and ethical declarations. The system automatically records the submission date and assigns a manuscript identification number for tracking purposes.
2. Editorial Screening
Responsible: Desk Editor, Editor
Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor or Managing Editor. This stage generally takes approximately one week and focuses on ensuring the manuscript’s basic eligibility for further review.
The screening includes:
verification of submission completeness and adherence to author guidelines,
assessment of alignment with the journal’s aims and scope,
evaluation of basic scholarly quality and ethical compliance,
preliminary originality and plagiarism screening.
Manuscripts that do not meet these minimum criteria may be returned to authors or rejected at this stage. Manuscripts that pass the screening proceed to the next step.
3. Expert Consultation (if needed)
Responsible party: Editor
For manuscripts addressing highly specialized, interdisciplinary, or emerging topics, the Editor may seek input from an external expert. This consultation supports editorial judgment, particularly regarding technical relevance, novelty, or methodological soundness.
This step is optional and does not replace formal peer review. Its purpose is to strengthen the fairness and quality of the editorial decision-making process.
4. Peer Review
Responsible party: Reviewers, Editor
Manuscripts approved for review are evaluated through an independent peer-review process. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and academic background relevant to the manuscript’s subject area.
Reviewers are asked to assess:
scientific rigor and methodological soundness,
originality and contribution to the field,
clarity of presentation and organization,
ethical standards and research integrity.
The peer-review process typically requires one to three months, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.
5. Revision Loop
Responsible: Author, Reviewers, Editor
Based on reviewer feedback, authors may be requested to revise their manuscript. Revisions can be categorized as:
minor revisions,
major revisions.
Authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response to reviewers, explaining how each comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by reviewers, and this review–revision cycle may repeat until a final recommendation is reached.
6. Editorial Decision
Responsible: Editor
After considering reviewer reports and revision outcomes, the Editor makes an official editorial decision. Possible decisions include:
Reject : the manuscript does not meet publication standards,
Proceed toward acceptance: the manuscript advances to the final preparation stages.
The editorial decision is communicated to the authors through the journal system. Direct communication between authors and reviewers is not permitted.
7. Pre-Acceptance and Formatting
Responsible: Desk Editor
Manuscripts that proceed toward acceptance enter the pre-acceptance stage, where they are prepared for publication. This includes:
formatting according to the journal’s style and layout requirements,
consistency checks for figures, tables, and references,
final editorial polishing.
Generative AI use and Similarity Check
This step ensures that the manuscript meets the journal’s technical and visual standards before final approval.
8. Acceptance
Responsible: Editor
Once all editorial and formatting requirements are fulfilled, the manuscript receives official acceptance. At this stage, the article is formally approved for publication, and authors are notified of the acceptance decision.
9. Proofs and Publication
Responsible: Desk Editor, Author, Publisher
In the final stage, the accepted manuscript undergoes:
final proofreading and copyediting,
preparation of galley proofs,
author verification and confirmation.
After proof approval, the article is published online and becomes accessible to readers through the journal’s platform.