Peer Review Process

Oda Journal of Science, Technology and Humanities (OJSTH) is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and transparency. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential. This approach ensures objectivity, fairness, and scholarly excellence in all published works.

Review Model & Key Features

  • Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Average Review Time: 4–6 weeks

  • Plagiarism Screening: Mandatory prior to peer review

  • Decision Authority: Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board

Step-by-Step Review Workflow

1. Initial Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the OJSTH online submission system. Submissions must align with the journal’s aim and scope and comply with formatting, ethical, and submission guidelines.

2. Preliminary Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to evaluate the manuscript’s relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and compliance with journal policies. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum quality or scope requirements may be desk-rejected at this stage.

3. Plagiarism Check

All manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are subjected to plagiarism detection using standard similarity-checking tools. Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity levels or ethical concerns are returned to authors or rejected.

4. Reviewer Assignment

The handling editor assigns at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise. Reviewers are selected based on academic competence, experience, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

5. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, scientific and scholarly rigor, clarity of presentation, relevance to the field, ethical compliance, and contribution to knowledge. Reviewers provide detailed, constructive, and anonymized comments and recommendations.

6. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Authors receive consolidated and anonymized reviewer feedback to guide revisions or inform the final decision.

7. Revision and Final Decision

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewers’ comments and resubmit within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by reviewers or assessed directly by the editor before a final publication decision is made.