Peer Review Process

Review Model

JMS uses a double-anonymous peer-review model for full community-service articles: the reviewers do not receive disclosed author identities in the review manuscript, and reviewers' identities are not routinely disclosed to authors. The journal's review judgments should be traceable through OJS even though individual reviewer identities remain confidential to the editorial office.

Editorial Workflow

1. Submission receipt: OJS records the manuscript, authors, selected section, and submitted files.
2. Preliminary check: an editor evaluates topical fit, originality, completeness, ethical declarations, image or participant consent where relevant, and adherence to article requirements. Unsuitable articles can be declined without external review.
3. Reviewer appointment: eligible submissions are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant domain or evaluation expertise. Conflicts are assessed before invitation; an editor selects replacements when necessary.
4. Review: reviewers assess the intervention rationale, partner involvement, documentation of implementation, reliability of evidence, ethical safeguards, originality, and usefulness of the discussion. Assessments should contain specific reasoning and practical revision requests.
5. Decision and revision: the handling editor considers both reports and issues a decision such as reject, major revision, minor revision, or accept. Authors respond point by point, and revised versions may receive additional review.
6. Final editorial control: acceptance follows adequate scientific and ethical evaluation; copyediting, layout, author proofing, and DOI/metadata checks take place before publication.

Independence and Confidentiality

The submission of a journal editor, publisher employee, funder, or close collaborator must be handled by an editor with no relevant conflict. Authors may suggest reviewers, but editorial staff independently assess suitability and are not obliged to use recommendations. Reviews and editorial decisions are recorded in OJS. The journal does not promise a fixed acceptance rate or guarantee publication in a particular issue.

Processing Time

Actual review and publication times vary. Any publicly stated average processing period must be calculated from real OJS submission and publication records and periodically checked; an eight-week estimate recorded in earlier indexing materials should not be presented as a guaranteed turnaround time without verification.