Review Policy

The Journal Infrastructure and Sustainable Development (JISD) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a peer review process that is rigorous, fair, and transparent. To support objectivity and reduce potential bias in editorial decisions, JISD applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment
All manuscripts submitted to JISD undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team, including the Editor-in-Chief or assigned members of the editorial board. This preliminary assessment considers whether the manuscript is aligned with the journal’s scope and focus, complies with author guidelines and publication ethics, and demonstrates sufficient originality, relevance, and clarity. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements—such as those outside the journal’s scope, those with significant ethical concerns, or those with inadequate language quality—may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to external review. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned a unique manuscript identification number for tracking purposes.

Double-Blind Peer Review
JISD uses a double-blind review model to preserve fairness and academic integrity. In this system, authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. This approach is intended to promote an unbiased and impartial assessment of scholarly work.

Reviewer Selection
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic background, publication record, experience in peer review, and the absence of any conflict of interest with the authors or their affiliated institutions. If the reviewers’ recommendations differ significantly, the editor may invite additional reviewers in order to ensure a balanced and fair evaluation.

Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript on the basis of several academic and technical considerations, including the novelty of the topic, originality of the approach, methodological rigor, relevance and contribution to the field, ethical compliance, coherence of argumentation, clarity of presentation, quality of language, adequacy of references, and conformity with JISD author guidelines.

Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide evaluations that are critical, constructive, and objective. Their role is not only to assess the suitability of the manuscript for publication, but also to help authors improve the quality of their work. Reviewers are therefore expected to submit their reports within the assigned timeframe or inform the editorial team if additional time is required, provide clear and reasoned recommendations, disclose any potential conflicts of interest, maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript and related documents, report any suspected ethical misconduct such as plagiarism or data fabrication, and, when necessary, suggest other qualified reviewers if they are unable to complete the review.

Timeline and Communication
In general, reviewers are given approximately two to four weeks to complete their review. Authors are informed of the estimated review period upon submission. When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond carefully to all reviewer and editorial comments and resubmit the revised manuscript within the prescribed deadline. Minor revisions are generally expected within two to four weeks, while major revisions are usually allowed four to eight weeks.

Editorial Decision-Making
The final decision regarding whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated senior editorial board members. This decision is made by taking into account the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the academic value and relevance of the manuscript, and its compliance with ethical, methodological, and reporting standards. The editorial team retains the authority to make the final decision even when reviewer opinions differ.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct
All parties involved in the peer review process, including editors, reviewers, and authors, are expected to uphold high ethical standards. Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished material for personal benefit, attempt to identify or contact the authors directly, or disclose, share, or reproduce any part of the manuscript under review.

Reviewer Guidance
At JISD, peer reviewers have a vital role in safeguarding the quality and credibility of published research. Reviewers are expected to follow established ethical principles, including the ethical guidance issued by COPE for peer reviewers. They must evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of scholarly merit and relevance to the journal’s publication criteria. Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and focused on the substance of the work rather than the individual author. Personal attacks, defamatory remarks, or unsubstantiated criticism are not acceptable. Reviewers must explain their assessments clearly, disclose any competing interests, decline review assignments where such conflicts exist, maintain confidentiality, and seek editorial permission before involving any colleague in the review process.

Reviewers are also expected to determine whether the manuscript’s objectives, methods, analysis, and conclusions are sound and appropriately presented. This includes evaluating whether the study offers a meaningful contribution to the field, whether relevant literature has been sufficiently cited, whether the data and methods are described in enough detail to support replication, whether statistical analyses are appropriate, whether the organization and clarity of the manuscript are adequate, and whether ethical requirements—such as approvals and participant confidentiality—have been properly addressed. Any concern related to plagiarism, data manipulation, or other ethical issues must be reported promptly to the editor.

Reviewers should always act fairly and professionally, providing respectful and constructive comments, even when they recommend rejection. They should only assess manuscripts within their area of expertise, preserve confidentiality at all times, and refrain from using generative AI tools in the review process unless explicitly authorized by the journal.

Review Quality and Process Improvement
JISD continually evaluates reviewer performance to maintain high standards of feedback quality, fairness, efficiency, and transparency. The journal also welcomes input from both authors and reviewers as part of its ongoing efforts to improve the peer review process.