Jivaro Journal
Peer review built for rigor, fairness, and accountability.
Jivaro Journal uses editorial screening and double-anonymous external peer review to evaluate research articles and review articles selected for review.
Workflow map
Follow the manuscript path.
Click each step to see what happens during submission handling, screening, editorial assessment, external review, decisions, and publication preparation.
Step 01
Submission received
The manuscript, title page, declarations, cover letter, and supporting files are received through the submission route and prepared for the first editorial check.
At a glance
Core peer-review rules.
These rules define the review path for research manuscripts and help authors understand what external review does and does not mean.
Submission does not guarantee review
Manuscripts may be declined during administrative screening or editorial assessment before external peer review.
Review is advisory
Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions, but the final decision remains with the journal’s editorial leadership.
Reviewers must be independent
Reviewers should have relevant expertise and no known disqualifying conflict of interest with the manuscript or authors.
Confidentiality is required
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, review comments, and editorial communications are handled as confidential materials.
Reviewer selection
How reviewers are chosen.
Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise, independence, availability, and ability to evaluate the manuscript fairly and confidentially.
Relevant expertise
Reviewers should have subject-matter knowledge appropriate to the manuscript’s methods, claims, evidence, field, or interdisciplinary context.
Independence
Reviewers should not have a known conflict that could compromise fair evaluation, including recent collaboration, direct competition, financial interests, or personal relationships.
Confidential handling
Reviewers must treat manuscripts, data, figures, reviewer instructions, and editorial correspondence as confidential review materials.
Decision outcomes
Editorial decisions after review.
Peer review may lead to several outcomes. A decision reflects editorial judgment, reviewer input, policy fit, scope, contribution, and publication readiness.
Decline
The manuscript is not accepted for publication, either before external review or after review and editorial assessment.
Major Revision
Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered, and further review may be needed.
Minor Revision
Limited changes are required before the manuscript can proceed toward acceptance or final editorial review.
Acceptance
The manuscript is accepted and may proceed to production, copyediting, proofing, metadata preparation, and publication.
Revisions
Revision responses should be clear and traceable.
Revised manuscripts should be accompanied by a structured response explaining how author changes address editorial and reviewer comments.
Point-by-point response
Authors should respond to each substantive editor or reviewer comment clearly and respectfully.
Changed text
Authors should identify where meaningful revisions were made and explain why changes were or were not made.
Updated declarations
Conflicts, funding, ethics, data availability, AI use, figures, tables, and supplementary files should be updated when needed.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential.
Confidentiality protects authors, reviewers, editors, unpublished data, research claims, and the integrity of the review process.
Review materials
Reviewers should not share manuscripts, figures, data, reviewer instructions, or editorial correspondence outside the authorized review process.
Reviewer identity
In double-anonymous review, reviewer and author identities should remain protected when feasible during the external review process.
Unpublished work
Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished manuscript information for personal, professional, commercial, or competitive advantage.
AI and automated tools
AI tools must not compromise manuscript confidentiality.
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, review materials, figures, data, reviewer comments, or editorial correspondence into third-party AI systems or automated tools unless the journal has explicitly permitted that use and confidentiality can be assured.
Human responsibility
Reviewer judgment, accuracy, tone, and confidentiality remain the reviewer’s responsibility.
Disclosure
Any permitted material AI assistance in review should be disclosed to the journal.
No substitution
AI output should not replace expert review, methodological judgment, ethical assessment, or editorial responsibility.
Fairness, conflicts, and appeals
Editorial fairness requires visible controls.
Conflicts, appeals, board-member manuscripts, complaints, and unusual review circumstances should be handled with transparency and recusal where appropriate.
Reviewer and editor conflicts
Reviewers and editors should disclose conflicts that may affect impartiality. Conflicted individuals may be recused from handling or reviewing a manuscript.
Editor or board-member manuscripts
Manuscripts submitted by editors, board members, or closely connected individuals should be handled by independent editors or reviewers without involvement from the conflicted person.
Appeals of editorial decisions
Authors may appeal by identifying a specific procedural concern, factual error, conflict issue, or evidence that could materially affect the decision.
Process complaints
Complaints about fairness, confidentiality, review conduct, conflicts, or policy handling should be submitted with enough detail to allow review.
Journal links
Research directory
Compact, alphabetized links for authors, reviewers, readers, and editorial-policy navigation.