Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

 

That's a great decision. Writing the Peer Review Process in English is essential for Scopus indexing, as it demonstrates the journal's international reach and transparency to global evaluators. 

I will help you draft this content step-by-step to ensure it meets the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards, which Scopus looks for. We will use professional academic terminology.

Let's start by structuring the Workflow Stages. Here is a high-level overview of how a Scopus-level process usually looks:

Proposed Outline for JNA.com.vn:

Initial Submission & Pre-screening: Checking for scope, basic formatting, and plagiarism (e.g., using iThenticate or Turnitin). 

Peer Review Model: Defining the "Double-Blind" process (where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous). 

Reviewer Evaluation: Criteria for assessment (originality, methodology, and contribution to the field). 

Final Decision: Possible outcomes (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject). 

Step 1: Defining the Review Type

Most high-quality journals use Double-Blind Peer Review to prevent bias. Before we draft the text, would you like to confirm if jna.com.vn will use:

Double-Blind Review: Author and Reviewer are both anonymous (Recommended for Scopus).

Single-Blind Review: Reviewer knows the Author, but the Author does not know the Reviewer.

Open Review: Everyone's identity is known.

Which model best fits your journal's policy? Once you choose, we can draft the specific "Initial Screening" section together.