Editorial Workflow

The OJS Editorial Workflow provides a structured process for managing manuscripts from submission through publication, and the journal employs a double-blind peer-review process.

 

Peer Review Process

Initial screening 1–2 weeks

The manuscript is reviewed by two or more experts 4–6 weeks

 

Possible Review Outcomes

• Acceptance (with/without minor revisions)

• Major revision required followed by re-evaluation

• Rejection

Peer Review Process

Review Model
Double-Blind
Reviewers
Two Minimum
Identity
Hidden Both Ways
Platform
OJS Workflow

UZJNS follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process managed entirely through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. In a double-blind model, neither the author nor the reviewer knows the other's identity, ensuring an impartial and unbiased assessment of every manuscript.

 

Review Workflow

1
Submission & Author Anonymisation

The author uploads the manuscript via OJS with all identifying information removed (names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and self-citations phrased neutrally).

2
Editorial Screening

The Editor performs an initial check for scope, completeness, formatting, plagiarism (maximum 20%), and ethical compliance before assigning reviewers.

3
Reviewer Selection

The Editor invites at least two qualified reviewers through OJS, based on expertise and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewer identities are never revealed to authors.

4
Double-Blind Evaluation

Reviewers assess the anonymised manuscript and submit a recommendation through OJS: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, accompanied by constructive comments to the author.

5
Editorial Decision

The Editor weighs the reviewers' reports and communicates a consolidated decision to the author through OJS, including anonymised reviewer comments.

6
Author Revision

Where revisions are required, authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment. Revisions may be re-reviewed if changes are substantial.

7
Final Acceptance & Production

Upon final acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout, and publication, with the full review record retained in OJS for audit and transparency.

Confidentiality & Ethics

  • All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are treated as strictly confidential.
  • Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest and decline the invitation if one exists.
  • Reviewers must not use, share, or disclose unpublished manuscript content in any form.
  • OJS restricts access to review materials to the assigned Editor and invited reviewers only.

Workflow Stages

Stage Process Description OJS Path
1
 Submission Author submits manuscript and metadata through OJS system Submissions → Queued
2
 Editorial Review Initial quality check, plagiarism screening, scope assessment Submissions → Unassigned
3
 Peer Review Reviewer selection, blind review process, recommendations Review → Reviewers
4
 Copyediting Language editing, style consistency, author approval Editing → Copyediting
5
 Production Formatting, layout, PDF galley creation Editing → Production
6
 Publication Issue scheduling, table of contents, final publication Issues → Future Issues

Decision Points

  • !
    Editorial Review: Desk Reject or Send to Review
  • ✓
    Peer Review: Accept, Revisions Required, or Reject
  • ✎
    Copyediting: Author Approval Required

Key OJS Roles

Role Responsibilities
Journal Manager System configuration, user management, overall oversight
Editor Submission management, reviewer assignment, final decisions
Section Editor Handles specific subject areas or submission types
Author Submits manuscripts, responds to revisions
Reviewer Evaluates submissions, provides recommendations
Copyeditor Edits for language, style, and consistency
Layout Editor Formats manuscripts for publication