Peer Review Process
Jivaro Journal uses a structured editorial and peer-review process for manuscripts under consideration for publication. Research Articles and Review Articles that pass initial editorial screening may be sent for double-anonymous external peer review by independent reviewers. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions, but final decisions are made by the journal’s handling editor or editorial leadership.
At a glance
Jivaro Journal uses double-anonymous peer review for Research Articles and Review Articles selected for external review.
Manuscripts sent to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise.
Not all submitted manuscripts are sent for peer review. Submissions may be returned or rejected after editorial screening if they are incomplete, unsuitable for the journal’s scope, or not prepared to a reviewable standard.
Final publication decisions are made by the handling editor or editorial leadership, not by reviewers alone.
Acknowledgment of receipt does not mean that a manuscript has entered peer review.
Review pathway
The editorial process is designed to identify submissions that are within scope, complete, ethically prepared, and suitable for external review.
-
The editorial office receives the manuscript and related submission materials through the submission form or approved editorial contact route. The submission is logged and checked for basic completeness.
-
The submission is reviewed for required files, author information, article type, declarations, formatting readiness, and obvious policy issues. Incomplete submissions may be returned to the author for correction before editorial assessment.
-
The handling editor assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, meets a baseline scholarly standard, and appears suitable for external peer review. Manuscripts that are clearly outside scope, insufficiently developed, or unsuitable for review may be rejected without external review.
-
Manuscripts selected for peer review are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, clarity, method or analytical approach, evidence, interpretation, contribution, and suitability for publication.
-
After review, the handling editor considers the reviewer reports and makes an editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The journal may request revision, reject the manuscript, or accept the manuscript where appropriate.
-
If revision is invited, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a response to editorial and reviewer comments. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofing, metadata preparation, layout, and publication.
Peer-review model
Double-anonymous review
Jivaro Journal uses double-anonymous peer review for Research Articles and Review Articles selected for external review. Under this model, reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not intentionally disclosed to reviewers during the review process.
Authors should prepare manuscripts and title pages according to the journal’s submission instructions so that identifying information can be handled appropriately during editorial processing.
Double-anonymous review reduces avoidable identity cues but cannot guarantee complete anonymity in all cases, particularly where manuscripts involve highly specialized topics, distinctive datasets, preprints, public reports, or self-citation patterns.
Reviewer selection and independence
Reviewers are selected based on relevant expertise, availability, independence, and ability to provide a fair and constructive assessment. Reviewers may be drawn from the journal’s reviewer pool, editorial board recommendations, external subject-matter networks, or independent expert identification by the editorial office.
Reviewers are expected to disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. A reviewer should decline or notify the editorial office if they have a personal, financial, professional, institutional, competitive, or collaborative relationship that could reasonably affect their judgment.
The journal normally seeks at least two independent reviewer reports before making a post-review decision. Additional review may be requested where reports conflict substantially, where specialized methodological input is needed, or where the handling editor determines that further assessment would improve the decision.
What reviewers assess
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s scholarly quality, clarity, and suitability for publication. Reviewers may be asked to comment on the following:
fit with the journal’s scope
originality and contribution
clarity of research question or central argument
appropriateness of method, evidence, data, or analytical approach
quality of interpretation and reasoning
relationship between claims and supporting evidence
engagement with relevant literature or context
ethical or disclosure issues, where apparent
organization, clarity, and readability
adequacy of figures, tables, references, and supplementary material
Reviewers are not asked to rewrite manuscripts for authors. Their role is to provide critical assessment and constructive guidance to support the editorial decision.
Editorial decisions
After editorial assessment or peer review, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:
Desk reject
The manuscript is rejected before external peer review because it is outside scope, incomplete, insufficiently developed, not suitable for the journal, or not prepared to a reviewable standard.
Reject after review
The manuscript is rejected after external review because the editorial assessment and reviewer reports do not support publication or further revision.
Major revision
The manuscript may be reconsidered if the authors make substantial revisions. A major revision decision does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers or reassessed editorially.
Minor revision**
The manuscript may be reconsidered after limited revisions, clarifications, corrections, or formatting changes. A minor revision decision does not guarantee acceptance until the final manuscript is editorially approved.
Accept
The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to final checks, copyediting, proofing, metadata preparation, and production requirements.
Withdrawn by author
Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript before publication. Withdrawal requests should be submitted through the journal’s contact form or editorial email and should include the manuscript title, corresponding author, and manuscript ID if available.
Revisions
When revision is invited, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a response document explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment was addressed. Authors should respond respectfully and specifically, including where they disagree with a recommendation.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to one or more original reviewers, assessed by the handling editor, or sent for additional review if necessary.
A request for revision is not a commitment to publish the manuscript.
Confidentiality, conflicts, and AI tools
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and decision materials are treated as confidential editorial records. Reviewers must not share, distribute, quote from, or use manuscript material outside the review process.
Conflicts of interest**
Editors and reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest that could reasonably affect impartiality. Where an editor has a conflict with a submission, editorial responsibility should be assigned to another qualified editor or editorial decision-maker.
Reviewer use of AI and automated tools**
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, unpublished data, or editorial correspondence into third-party AI tools or automated systems unless the journal has explicitly permitted such use. Reviewers remain responsible for the content, accuracy, and judgment of their review.
Author use of AI and automated tools**
Authors should disclose use of generative AI or automated tools in manuscript preparation where required by the journal’s Author Guidelines and Publication Policies. Automated tools may not be listed as authors.
Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe there has been a significant procedural error, conflict of interest, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or material issue in the review process. Appeals should be submitted through the journal’s contact form using the “Appeal of editorial decision” option.
Appeals should include the manuscript title, corresponding author name, manuscript ID if available, the decision being appealed, and a concise explanation of the grounds for appeal.
Appeals are reviewed by the editorial leadership or by another appropriate editor where a conflict of interest exists. The journal may uphold the original decision, request further assessment, invite revision, or issue a revised decision.
Appeals are not a second round of review and should not be used to submit a substantially rewritten manuscript unless requested by the journal.
Manuscripts by editors or editorial board members
Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, reviewers, or individuals with a close relationship to the journal are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions.
Where a conflict of interest exists, the conflicted individual will not handle the manuscript, select reviewers, access confidential review materials, or participate in the final decision. Editorial responsibility should be assigned to an independent editor or decision-maker.
Authors should review the Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics, and Submission page before sending a manuscript. Suitability for peer review does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
