JASAP states its review model in its public policies. Publication timelines vary according to manuscript readiness, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and editorial workload.
Editors may desk reject submissions that are out of scope, incomplete, insufficiently anonymised, previously published, ethically deficient, or unlikely to meet the journal standard after review.
Submissions from editors, editorial board members, guest editors, or individuals with a close relationship to the journal are handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest. Such submissions follow the same peer-review standards as other manuscripts.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the journal is not obliged to use them. Authors may also identify reviewers they believe may have a conflict of interest; the editorial team will consider such requests but retains final responsibility for reviewer selection.
Supplementary material may be considered during peer review where it supports the scholarly claims of the manuscript. Special issue papers follow the same peer-review standards.
Reviewer reports are treated as confidential, are not published, and reviewers are not named unless a different arrangement is explicitly approved by the journal.
Authors are informed when review is delayed. Appeals must identify a procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or evidence that materially affects the decision.
© 2026 JASAP authors. Articles are licensed under CC BY.
