Peer Review Process

JILWSD employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout. This model ensures impartiality, objectivity, and the integrity of scholarly evaluation.

Review Model

• Model: Double-Blind Peer Review
• Minimum reviewers per manuscript: Two (2) independent experts
• Third reviewer invited in cases of conflicting recommendations
• Both author and reviewer identities withheld throughout the process

Review Criteria

• Originality and Novelty — Does the manuscript make a genuine scholarly contribution?
• Relevance to Scope — Is the topic clearly aligned with the journal's focus?
• Theoretical Framework — Is the conceptual grounding sound and appropriate?
• Methodology — Are research design, data collection, and analysis valid and rigorous?
• Data Presentation — Are findings presented clearly with appropriate tables and figures?
• Discussion and Conclusions — Are interpretations supported by evidence? Are limitations acknowledged?
• References — Are citations current, relevant, and correctly formatted (APA 7th)?
• Language and Clarity — Is the manuscript written in clear, scholarly English?
• Ethical Compliance — Are ethics approvals reported where applicable?

Reviewer Recommendations

• Accept As Is — No revision required; recommended for immediate publication
• Minor Revision — Small clarifications needed; re-review by editor only
• Major Revision — Substantial revisions required; re-review by original reviewers
• Reject — Does not meet journal standards; resubmission discouraged unless fundamental reworking is undertaken

Appeals Process

Authors who believe their manuscript was rejected in error may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days, including a detailed point-by-point rebuttal. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on appeals is final.