Peer Review Policy

Overview
The Extensive Journal of Applied Sciences (EJASJ) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity, originality, and scholarly quality. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated fairly and impartially by subject-matter experts.

Types of Peer Review
EJASJ employs a double-blind review model, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to eliminate bias and maintain objectivity.

Review Process Steps

  • Initial Editorial Screening: Each submission is checked by the editorial office for alignment with the journal’s scope, formatting, and ethical guidelines.

  • Plagiarism Check: Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection tools (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate).

  • Assignment to Reviewers: Two to three independent experts are invited to evaluate the manuscript.

  • Review Timeframe: Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within 2 to 4 weeks.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Methodological rigor

  • Clarity and coherence of writing

  • Proper referencing and adherence to ethical standards

Editorial Decision
Based on reviewers’ feedback, the editorial team may decide to:

  • Accept the manuscript

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Request major revisions

  • Reject the manuscript

Authors receive consolidated reviewer comments along with the editor’s decision and suggestions for improvement.

Revision and Resubmission
Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments within 2 to 3 weeks. The revised manuscript may be returned to the same reviewers or evaluated by the editorial board.

6. Reviewer Anonymity and Confidentiality
All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose any manuscript details outside the peer review process.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback

  • Declare any conflicts of interest

  • Maintain confidentiality

  • Report any unethical practices such as plagiarism or data fabrication

Appeals and Complaints
Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal in writing to the editorial office with a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editorial board member.

Recognition of Reviewers
EJASJ acknowledges the vital contribution of peer reviewers by providing certificates of reviewing and listing reviewers annually (with their consent) on the journal’s website.