Peer Review

JISAS uses double-blind peer review. Before external review, submissions undergo administrative checks for completeness, journal scope and applicable ethical declarations. Similarity screening may be used where available as one input to editorial assessment; it does not replace editorial judgement.

Review and decisions

Editors select independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise and seek to manage conflicts of interest. The number of reviews and the time to decision depend on the manuscript and reviewer availability; JISAS does not promise a fixed or accelerated timeframe. Review may include one or more revision rounds. Decisions may be desk rejection, reject, major revision, minor revision or accept. Where reviews conflict, the handling editor may seek further advice.

Independence, confidentiality and AI

Editor-authored and editorial-board submissions must be handled without the author’s editorial involvement and with safeguards against conflicts of interest. Reviewers must keep manuscripts and review materials confidential and disclose conflicts before accepting an invitation. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content to generative-AI tools unless the journal has expressly authorised a secure process. Appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals policy.