The entire editorial workflow is handled via the OS. Each article is first evaluated by the editor-in-chief for the originality and scientific rigor of its research. If it passes this first test, the editor-in-chief forwards the manuscript to the most suitable editor depending on the subject matter and availability.
I. Editor decides on the procedure
The editor rejects the manuscript if
a) He/She finds the manuscript is of unsatisfactory quality or
b) The manuscript subject matter does not suit the journal's content.
If the editor does not reject the manuscript, he/she forwards it to at least two peer reviewers for assessment. The editor of JNSA assigns independent referees and then makes a decision on their reports, with the final decision made by the editor-in-chief.
II. Peer review process
The manuscript is assessed by peer reviewers. After assessing the manuscript, the peer reviewers send their reports to the editor. The peer reviewers give a recommendation as to the further course of action.
The editor decides on the further course of action. The manuscript is
a) Published unchanged.
b) Published following minor alterations or minor revision. The authors are requested to produce and submit a final version of the manuscript with the required amendments.
c) Reassessed following major alterations or major revision.
The authors are requested to produce and submit a version of the manuscript with the required amendments. The manuscript is sent to peer reviewers for reassessment. The peer-review process begins anew.
When the editor does not initiate any other changes, the editor makes a suggestion, and then the editor-in-chief makes the final decision.
The final decision generally lies with the editor-in-chief.