Peer Review Process

NADT Journals employs a double-blind peer review model. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure impartial evaluation and to minimize bias.

1. Initial Editorial Screening: The submitted manuscript is reviewed by the editorial team to ensure relevance to the journal’s scope, basic quality standards, and compliance with submission guidelines.
2. Plagiarism and Ethical Check: Manuscripts may be screened for plagiarism and ethical compliance. Submissions failing to meet ethical standards may be rejected at this stage.
3. Reviewer Assignment: Suitable subject-expert reviewers are identified and invited to evaluate the manuscript anonymously.
4. Peer Review Evaluation: Reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, academic rigor, methodological soundness, clarity, and contribution to the field.
5. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer reports, the editor makes a decision: accept, revise, or reject.
6. Revision and Re-evaluation: Authors may be requested to revise the manuscript in response to reviewer comments. Revised submissions may undergo further review.

• Originality and contribution to knowledge
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Clarity of objectives and argument
• Appropriateness of methodology or conceptual framework
• Quality of analysis and interpretation
• Use of relevant and current literature
• Language clarity and academic presentation

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare any potential conflicts of interest, provide constructive and unbiased feedback, and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe. Reviews should be objective and respectful, aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.

Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit, relevance, and ethical considerations. NADT Journals does not discriminate on the basis of gender, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.