Manuscript Review and Publication Process

The Charmo Journal of Natural Sciences and Technologies (CJNST) maintains high standards for scientific quality, originality, and editorial integrity. The journal follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer-review process modeled after best practices in international open-access publishing.

1. Submission and Editorial Triage

Once a manuscript is submitted, it undergoes initial editorial triage. At this stage:

  • The Editor-in-Chief performs a preliminary review of each submission for suitability with the journal’s scope and research standards.
  • If appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a qualified Academic Editor (Section Editor or Associate Editor) based on subject expertise.
  • A plagiarism check is conducted using standard detection tools (e.g., Turnitin). Manuscripts with significant textual overlap will be rejected immediately, and ethical concerns may be escalated.
  • Manuscripts must meet basic requirements for language quality, structure, formatting, and ethical compliance. Submissions falling short may be returned to authors for technical corrections or declined without peer review.

2. Editorial Assessment

The assigned Academic Editor assesses:

  • Scientific novelty and relevance
  • Methodological soundness
  • Compliance with ethical standards (e.g., IRB approval, informed consent)
  • Alignment with journal focus

Submissions that do not pass this assessment will be rejected. Those that meet the criteria move to the peer-review stage.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts passing editorial assessment are reviewed by at least two independent experts through a double-blind process (authors and reviewers remain anonymous).

Reviewers evaluate:

  • Originality and scientific rigor
  • Soundness of methodology and statistical analysis
  • Clarity of presentation and logical coherence
  • Significance of results and relevance to the field

Reviews are expected within 2–3 weeks. If reviewers disagree significantly, a third opinion may be sought.

4. Editorial Decision and Author Revisions

Based on peer-review feedback, the editor will issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Request major revisions
  • Reject

Authors receiving revision requests must:

  • Submit a point-by-point response to reviewer comments
  • Upload a tracked-changes version of the revised manuscript
  • Return revisions within the specified deadline (usually 2–4 weeks)

5. Final Evaluation

The revised manuscript and author responses are reassessed by the Academic Editor. If the revisions satisfy reviewer concerns and maintain scientific integrity, the editor will recommend acceptance. Additional review rounds may occur if required.

6. Pre-Publication Quality Control

Once accepted:

  • A final editorial review ensures consistency with journal formatting and ethical policies.
  • The manuscript undergoes professional copyediting for language, clarity, and structure.
  • Authors are sent galley proofs for final review. Only minor corrections are allowed at this stage.

7. Online Publication

After proof approval:

  • The article is published under an open-access Creative Commons license.
  • A Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned.
  • The article appears in the “Online First” section and is later included in a regular journal issue.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions within two weeks of the decision notification email. Appeals must include:

  • A detailed rebuttal letter addressing the editorial and reviewer comments
  • Any clarifications, new data, or evidence

Appeals are evaluated by a senior editor not involved in the original review process. The final decision, issued by the Editor-in-Chief, is binding.

 Ethical Compliance

All editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to maintain transparency, accountability, and ethical integrity throughout the review process.