1. Peer-Review Model

JTST applies a single-blind peer-review process. The reviewers can see the identities and affiliations of the authors, while the identities of the reviewers are kept confidential from the authors.

Every manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening will be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who have expertise relevant to the topic of the manuscript. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission through the JTST online journal system, the manuscript will undergo an initial screening by the editorial team. This stage is normally completed within approximately seven working days.

The editorial screening includes:

• Suitability with the focus and scope of JTST;
• Compliance with the journal template and author guidelines;
• Completeness of the manuscript and article metadata;
• Clarity of the research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions;
• Originality and potential scientific contribution;
• Similarity and potential plagiarism;
• Authorship and contributorship information;
• Ethical approval, informed consent, and data protection, where applicable;
• Conflict of interest, funding, and data availability declarations; and
• Compliance with relevant research and publication ethics standards.

3. Similarity and Plagiarism Screening

Before entering the peer-review stage, manuscripts are checked using appropriate similarity-detection software. The similarity report is evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether the detected overlap is acceptable, properly cited, or indicates possible plagiarism or redundant publication.

The similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for a decision. Editors also examine the location, extent, source, and nature of the overlap. A manuscript containing inappropriate or excessive overlap may be returned for correction, rejected, or handled under the journal's publication ethics policy.

4. Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise, publication record, experience, independence, and suitability for evaluating the manuscript.

Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

• Have expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject and methodology;
• Have an active and verifiable scholarly publication record;
• Be able to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments;
• Have no financial, institutional, personal, or professional conflict of interest with the authors or research;
• Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process; and
• Agree to comply with JTST's reviewer responsibilities and publication ethics policies.

The editor will avoid appointing reviewers whose relationships with the authors or involvement in the research could reasonably affect their independence.

5. Reviewer Assessment Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

6. Peer-Review Stages

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

8. Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor after considering the reviewer reports, the author's responses, the quality of the revised manuscript, and compliance with the journal's policies.

When the reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may:

• Assess the reasons and evidence provided by each reviewer;
• Request clarification from the reviewers;
• Appoint an additional independent reviewer; or
• Make an editorial decision based on the manuscript and the available reports.

Editors will not make decisions on manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. Such manuscripts will be assigned to another qualified and independent editor.

9. Revision Process

Authors must respond to every reviewer and editor comment in a clear and structured response document. Revised sections should be identified or highlighted according to the editor's instructions.

• Minor revisions should normally be submitted within 7–14 days;
• Major revisions should normally be submitted within 14–30 days; and
• Authors requiring additional time should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline.

Failure to submit a revision within the specified period without prior communication may result in the manuscript being closed or treated as a new submission.

10. Review Timeline

The review timeline is an estimate and may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, number of revision rounds, and author response time.

11. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, correspondence, research data, and other materials related to the review process are confidential.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose, distribute, discuss, quote, copy, or use information from a submitted manuscript for personal, professional, institutional, or commercial advantage before publication.

12. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any relationship or interest that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their evaluation of a manuscript.

A potential conflict may include:

• Employment at the same institution as an author;
• Recent research collaboration or joint publication with an author;
• A supervisory, family, personal, or financial relationship;
• Direct academic competition or dispute; or
• Any other condition that may compromise impartiality.

A reviewer who has a conflict of interest must decline the invitation and notify the editor promptly.

13. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

14. Reviewer Misconduct

JTST will investigate credible concerns regarding reviewer misconduct, including breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, plagiarism of manuscript content, inappropriate use of research ideas, impersonation, false reviewer identities, abusive comments, or manipulation of the review process.

Confirmed reviewer misconduct may result in removal from the reviewer database, cancellation of the review, notification of the reviewer's institution, or other proportionate actions.

15. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural error, or undisclosed conflict of interest.

An appeal must explain the grounds for disagreement and provide relevant evidence. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who is not directly conflicted with the manuscript. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the editorial decision will be changed.

16. Editorial Contact