Double Blind Peer Review Process

The Journal of Techniques applies a double-blind peer review process supported by structured integrity screening and editorial oversight to ensure the quality, originality, and ethical soundness of published research, in alignment with COPE Core Practices and international standards in scholarly publishing.

1. Manuscript Submission

The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the Journal of Techniques online submission system. At submission, authors must confirm compliance with the journal’s policies on authorship, research ethics, citation practices, and responsible use of generative AI.

2. Administrative & Structural Assessment

The Executive Director performs an initial technical check to ensure that the manuscript:

  • Complies with the journal’s Author Guidelines
  • Includes all required sections and declarations
  • Meets formatting and submission requirements

The scientific quality of the manuscript is not assessed at this stage.

3. Pre-Publication Integrity Screening

Prior to peer review, all manuscripts undergo structured integrity screening designed to identify potential ethical or publication-related concerns.

  • Similarity screening using Turnitin (acceptable similarity index: < 20%, excluding references) and not more than 5% for a single source
  • AI-generated content screening (must not exceed 25% and must comply with the journal’s AI policy)
  • Verification of reference validity and resolvability
  • Analysis of citation patterns to detect excessive self-citation or concentrated author citation clusters
  • Author-level checks, including review of publicly available retraction and integrity signals where applicable.
    Public platforms such as PubPeer and Retraction Watch are used as informational sources to identify potential concerns, which are assessed editorially and do not constitute automatic grounds for rejection.

Manuscripts raising significant integrity concerns may be rejected at this stage or escalated for enhanced editorial assessment.

4. Editor-in-Chief Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s aims and scope and meets minimum standards of originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution.

Manuscripts may be rejected without external peer review if deemed unsuitable or insufficiently original.

5. Reviewer Selection & Verification

The Editor-in-Chief selects external reviewers based on subject expertise, academic reputation, and independence.

  • Reviewers must not be affiliated with the authors’ institutions, the reviewer should have an institutional email. 
  • Editorial board members do not act as reviewers on their own papers nor on papers from their own institutions. 
  • Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are independently verified and are not relied upon exclusively. If considered, the journal may use at most one reviewer from the author’s recommendations.
  • Reviewer identities and potential conflicts of interest are assessed prior to invitation

A minimum of two independent reviewer acceptances is required to proceed.

6. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system in which reviewer identities are concealed from authors and author identities are concealed from reviewers.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s scientific quality, methodology, originality, clarity, and relevance, and submit a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject.

7. Editorial Evaluation of Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates all reviewer reports for rigor, relevance, and completeness. Where reviews conflict or raise integrity concerns, additional independent reviewers may be invited.

8. Editorial Decision & Author Notification

Based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief issues an initial decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

Authors are notified through the journal system and receive anonymized reviewer comments and editorial guidance.

9. Revision & Author Response

Authors invited to revise must address all reviewer and editorial comments point by point. All changes must be clearly indicated, and compliance with integrity, citation, and AI policies must be maintained.

10. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer evaluations, author responses, and full compliance with journal policies and ethical standards.

11. Post-Publication Monitoring & Scholarly Record Stewardship

After publication, the journal actively monitors articles for post-publication signals, including public commentary, integrity concerns, and newly identified issues (including publicly available scholarly commentary platforms such as PubPeer and retraction databases such as Retraction Watch).

Any post-publication signals are evaluated by the editorial team in accordance with COPE guidance and do not imply misconduct without further investigation

When necessary, corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions are issued in accordance with COPE-recommended procedures, ensuring transparency, fairness, and protection of the scholarly record.