JSOMER uses double-blind peer review. Author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another throughout review. Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding details, self-identifying statements, and other identifying information.

The Editorial Office checks anonymization, but complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed when identity may be inferred from the topic, citations, data, preprints, conferences, or repositories. Reviewers and authors must not attempt to identify or contact one another.

Every manuscript undergoes editorial assessment before external review. The editor considers scope, contribution, methodology, reporting, ethics, required declarations, clarity, formatting, and suitability for peer review.

• Checks may cover authorship, originality, redundant publication, ethics approval, consent, conflicts, funding, data availability, reporting guidelines, anonymization, and AI use.
• A manuscript may be rejected without external review for scope, contribution, methodological, ethical, reporting, or suitability concerns. Such rejection does not imply that the research has no value.

Manuscripts passing initial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Selection considers expertise, competence, publication experience, independence, conflicts, previous review quality, diversity, and ability to provide fair evidence-based evaluation.

Reviewers are normally external to the editorial team. Board members may review when qualified and unconflicted, but JSOMER does not rely exclusively on Board members.

Reviewers should not handle manuscripts involving the same institution or unit, recent or current collaboration, close personal, supervisory, professional, financial, competitive, or research relationships, or another circumstance reasonably affecting impartiality.

Sharing a broad discipline, professional association, country, or occasional conference participation is not automatically a conflict. When uncertain, reviewers must disclose the relationship and allow the editor to decide.

Before accepting, reviewers should assess expertise, availability, conflicts, confidentiality, and ability to provide an objective and constructive report. Reviewers unable to meet these conditions should decline promptly; declining does not disadvantage future invitations.

Reports are normally requested within 21 days after acceptance. Reasonable extensions may be granted. The editor may reassign delayed or unresponsive reviews. The 21-day period is a target, not a guaranteed decision time.

Reviewers apply criteria appropriate to article type and discipline.

• scope, originality, significance, and engagement with relevant literature;
• clarity of questions, aims, arguments, and theoretical foundation;
• research design, sampling, measurement, intervention, data collection, and methodological transparency;
• appropriateness, reproducibility, and accuracy of analysis and results;
• alignment of evidence, conclusions, and limitations;
• ethics, consent, data, materials, code, analytical transparency, and reporting guidelines;
• quality of tables, figures, supplements, organization, and scholarly writing.

Reports should be objective, constructive, respectful, specific, evidence-based, sufficiently detailed, and focused on accuracy and scholarly quality. Reviewers should distinguish essential revisions, material improvements, and optional preferences.

Personal criticism, discriminatory or insulting language, unsupported allegations, and coercive citations are prohibited. Citation suggestions must be directly relevant and academically justified, not intended to increase citations to a reviewer, associate, institution, or journal.

Manuscripts, reports, and editorial information are confidential. Reviewers must not share files, disclose contents, use unpublished ideas or data, contact authors, reveal reviewer status, retain materials unnecessarily, or discuss the manuscript publicly.

Input from a colleague, trainee, or specialist requires prior editor permission. Substantial contributors to a review must be identified to the editor and comply with the same confidentiality and conflict rules.

Confidential manuscripts, supplements, reports, correspondence, and unpublished data must not be uploaded to unauthorized external generative AI systems. AI must not replace scholarly judgment or reviewer responsibility.

Where a secure authorized tool is permitted for limited assistance, the reviewer remains responsible for verification, confidentiality, prevention of fabricated claims, independent assessment, and required disclosure. Inappropriate use may result in review withdrawal or termination of the assignment.

Reviewers may recommend Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Resubmit for review, or Decline. Recommendations are advisory and decisions are not made by counting votes. The editor evaluates reasoning, evidence, completeness, and consistency.

When reports conflict or are inadequate, the editor may request clarification, invite another reviewer, seek specialist advice, conduct further assessment, or make a reasoned decision. Reports involving serious conflicts, confidentiality breaches, discrimination, unsupported allegations, or coercive citations may be disregarded.

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized unconflicted editor. Decisions consider scope, contribution, methodology, reporting, ethics, reviewer reports, author responses, journal policies, and reliability of the scholarly record.

The publisher does not direct acceptance or rejection. Acceptance follows completion of required assessment and review and resolution of essential scholarly, methodological, ethical, and reporting concerns.

A revision should include a revised manuscript, a point-by-point response, and explanations for changes not made. Responses should be respectful, specific, and supported by scholarly or methodological reasoning.

Revisions may be assessed by the editor, original reviewers, new reviewers, or specialists. Revision does not guarantee acceptance. A declined manuscript may be resubmitted only when explicitly permitted, with disclosure of the earlier submission and substantial changes.

Editorial association provides no preferential treatment. When an editor, Board member, or publisher is an author, that person has no role in initial assessment, reviewer selection, confidential discussion, revision assessment, scheduling, or decision-making.

An independent editor assumes full responsibility. When the Editor-in-Chief is an author, the independent editor manages reviewer selection, review, and the final decision. An editorial independence statement is included where appropriate.

Special issue manuscripts follow the same scholarly, ethical, and peer-review standards. Conflicted Guest Editors must not handle manuscripts, and the Editor-in-Chief retains oversight and may appoint independent handling or additional review.

Announcements, corrections, retractions, Expressions of Concern, publisher notices, and administrative content may receive editorial rather than external review. Their status must be identified clearly so readers are not misled.

Potential plagiarism, fabrication, image manipulation, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts, missing ethics approval, inappropriate authorship, or other integrity concerns must be communicated confidentially to the handling editor.

The editor may request clarification or records, suspend review, seek specialist advice, contact an institution where justified, reject or withdraw the manuscript, or take another policy-based action. Reviewers must not investigate independently, contact authors, or disclose allegations publicly.

Authors may appeal when a material factual, procedural, methodological, or ethical error may have affected the decision. An appeal must identify the manuscript and decision, state specific grounds, address the reasoning, provide evidence, and be submitted respectfully within the applicable period.

An appeal is not routine revision or mere disagreement. Where possible, an independent editor reviews the appeal and communicates a reasoned outcome under the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

JSOMER may provide certificates, confirmation letters, consent-based annual acknowledgments, reviewer-profile integration, or other recognition consistent with confidentiality. Recognition must not connect a reviewer publicly to a manuscript without appropriate consent.

The Editorial Office monitors independence, expertise, report quality, timeliness, conflicts, confidentiality, consistency, and policy compliance. Reviewers may no longer be invited when they repeatedly provide inadequate reports, conceal conflicts, breach confidentiality, use coercive citations, or act unprofessionally.