Peer Review Process

Double-Anonymized Standard

Peer Review Workflow & Evaluation Model

Turnaround: 4–6 Weeks First Decision

The Journal of the Deep Science and Technology Consortium (JDSTC) operates a rigorous Double-Anonymized (Double-Blind) Peer Review workflow. Both author and reviewer identities remain strictly concealed throughout the evaluation cycle to eliminate geographical, gender, institutional, and seniority biases.

6-Stage Editorial Workflow Timeline

1
Submission & Triage

Technical formatting, plagiarism screening, and scope check (1–3 Days)

2
Editor Assignment

Domain Section Editor assigned for reviewer selection (3–5 Days)

3
Peer Review

Minimum 2 independent expert peer reviews completed (2–4 Weeks)

4
First Decision

Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject decision issued

5
Revision & Check

Authors submit revised manuscript + point-by-point rebuttal (2–4 Weeks)

6
Online Publication

Typesetting, proof approval, DOI assignment, and Open Access release

Reviewer Evaluation Rubric

Peer reviewers evaluate submissions across five mandatory dimensions:

Evaluation Dimension Assessment Criteria Weight
1. Originality & Novelty Does the manuscript present new empirical evidence, novel theoretical models, or significant advancements over existing literature? 25%
2. Methodological Rigor Are research designs, algorithms, statistical analyses, and experimental procedures reproducible and scientifically sound? 25%
3. Scientific Impact & Scope Does the contribution have meaningful theoretical or applied implications for deep science and emerging technology? 20%
4. Presentation & Clarity Is the paper clearly structured (IMRaD), grammatically proficient, with well-rendered equations and figures? 15%
5. Literature & Referencing Are relevant recent publications appropriately cited in Roman script with complete bibliographic details? 15%

Conflict of Interest & Ethical Safeguards

  • Reviewers who have co-authored papers with the authors in the preceding 36 months, share institutional affiliations, or have commercial competing interests are disqualified from reviewing the manuscript.
  • All review reports and recommendations are archived securely within OJS to provide an unbroken audit trail for indexing evaluations.