Editorial  and peer review procedures (Single blinded)
JABET operates a single-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous. The benefit of single-blind peer review is that it is the traditional model of peer review that many reviewers are comfortable with, and it facilitates a dispassionate critique of a manuscript. JABET strives hard to spread scientific knowledge, and the credibility of the published article completely depends upon an effective peer-reviewing process. Reviewing a manuscript is an important part of the process of publication. Reviewers are asked to make an evaluation and provide recommendations to ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript is on par with our standards. Reviewers are not expected to rewrite a paper. JABET reviewers are requested to provide authentic, positive review comments and critiques for the respective manuscript. A reviewer has to review the articles received from the editorial office or the editor within the specifically mentioned timeline.

• After the manuscript is received, it is primarily checked by at least one member of the editorial board. a) If the manuscript is not well formatted, it is sent back to the corresponding author. b) If the content is not satisfactory or does not match the scopes of JABET, the manuscript is sent back as rejected instantly. c) Upon passing the preliminary screening, an associate or academic editor is assigned, and then he/she will send the manuscript to at least two expert peer reviewers.
• An invitation for each reviewer is sent by e-mail from the journal management system. Only the title and abstract of the manuscript are included in the e-mail invitation. After accepting the invitation, the reviewer gets full access to the entire manuscript (at least 3 weeks are allowed). JABET uses a single-blind review system, which means that the reviewer identities are kept confidential from the authors until the review process is completed.
• After the completion of the peer-review process, the revised manuscript is sent to the associate editor for critical checking and seeking primary comments on whether the manuscript can be accepted or it is sent for revision. The revision time allowed for individual manuscripts may vary depending on the extent of work as suggested by the reviewers. Following review, a decision is communicated by an Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor relevant to the topic as soon as all referees' reports are compiled.

• The decision may be any one of the following:

1. Accept (with or without editorial revision)
2. Suggest the authors for more revision (Major or minor for at least 1-4 weeks)
3. Reject, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance, or major technical and/or interpretational problem.

• Approximately, the time from receipt to acceptance of the manuscript is 6-9 weeks.
• The whole submission, peer-review, and editorial processes are maintained through the journal management system.

 

After acceptance
After provisional acceptance, the corresponding author is notified about the acceptance and is requested to complete the payment process. The corresponding author is given 1 week of time for the completion of payment, and the author must complete the process within this time frame. Upon receiving the payment, English language editing is done by experts. Then, the manuscript is formatted to make galley proof. The galley proof is sent as a PDF file to the corresponding author, and 3 days are given for the corrections by the authors. Once the corrections are effected in the galley, the article is sent to the Editor-in-Chief for the final quality control step. Once the quality control step is completed, a DOI is assigned. Then the article is published as a Forthcoming or ONLINE version.
After the publication of the ONLINE version, minor corrections (careless mistakes) noticed by the author can be corrected within 3 days. However, the title, author list, and affiliations cannot be changed. Then the version is considered as complete and final, the final version is included in the upcoming issue with volume and page numbers. Please note that the author is responsible for all statements made in their work, including changes made.

 

Editorial Boards: Role and selection process
Editors play the principal role in the running of the journals. They maintain the quality of published research, guide the scientific and editorial direction of the journals, enhance the journals’ relevancy and impact, and contribute to the advancement of the broader scientific community. JABET is operated by the guidance of an editorial board (academic editors including area or associate editors), providing expert advice on content, attracting new authors, and encouraging submissions.

The Editorial Board is a team of experts in the journal’s field. The function of Editorial board members:

• Advise on journal policy and scope.
• Assist the editor(s) in decision-making over issues such as plagiarism claims and submissions to make a decision.
• Selecting Editorial Board members.
• Review submitted manuscripts.
• Attract new authors and submissions.
• Promote the journal to their colleagues and peers.
• Identify topics for special issues, which they may guest edit.

Editorial Board members are selected by the journal’s editor(s), with input from the publisher. Editorial boards generally undergo a complete revision every two years, with members joining, stepping down or continuing for another term. Changes also occur in the interim, for example, if a member resigns. The editorial board of JABET is a center part of the journal’s quality, so editors consider the following:

• Board members’ expertise should represent the journal’s scope
• The location of board members should represent the reach of the journal
• Representatives should be appointed from key research institutes
• Existing board members may have suggestions for new members
• Former guest editors of special issues, and authors of key reviews, and top reviewers may be suitable

 

Conflicts of interest

• As a member of a journal’s Editorial Board, the editor needs to be very aware of the risk of conflicts when handling a manuscript. Firstly, editors should assess their own potential conflicts. If they have recently coauthored with the author(s) of the manuscript, they could be perceived to be influenced by their relationship. JABET aims to avoid assigning papers to Editors who might have conflicts, but we also expect our Editors to declare any conflicts. If they believe a conflict exists, they should refuse to handle the manuscript.
• As a subject expert, the journal relies on the editor’s knowledge of the discipline to assess any conflicts declared by a submitting author. They are also uniquely placed to be able to identify any undeclared conflicts that an author might have. They should think about these factors when making a recommendation on the manuscript. They should also consider potential conflicts when assigning the manuscript to reviewers.
• JABET performs conflict of interest checks on all reviewers before they receive the manuscript for review, but they should also rely on their knowledge of the sector to inform assignments they make. Typically, they should not select a referee who:

-works or has recently worked at the same institution as the author or authors; or

-has recently coauthored a paper with the author or authors; or

-has a recent or current collaboration with the author or authors.

• Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they:

-Have a recent publication or current submission with any author

-Share or have recently shared an affiliation with any author

-Collaborate or have recently collaborated with any author

-Have a close personal connection to any author

-Have a financial interest in the subject of the work

-Feel unable to be objective

 

Confidentiality

• Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process. Reviewers may, on request, consult with colleagues from their research group trusting that the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report.
• All manuscripts should be kept completely confidential. The Editor and any member of the Editorial Team must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Editors should not use any of its insights until after publication.