PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. The submission must follow the journal template, author guidelines, ethical requirements, and relevant formatting instructions. Authors must ensure that all identifying information has been removed from the blinded manuscript file.

Each submission undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. This stage determines whether the manuscript is suitable for further review.

The editorial assessment may consider:

• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
• Compliance with author guidelines and template.
• Originality and scientific contribution.
• Methodological adequacy and clarity.
• Ethical approval and research integrity.
• Similarity-screening results.
• Overall readability and manuscript organization.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise.

• Reviewers are selected according to subject expertise, publication experience, independence, and availability.
• Reviewers should not have financial, institutional, professional, or personal conflicts of interest.
• Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.
• The journal may appoint additional reviewers when specialist assessment is required or reviewer recommendations differ substantially.

JuVoTek applies double-blind peer review. Reviewers do not receive the authors' identities, affiliations, or contact details, and authors are not informed of reviewer identities.

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on:

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor.

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must address all reviewer and editor comments carefully and transparently.

• Submit a revised manuscript with changes clearly marked where requested.
• Provide a point-by-point response to every reviewer and editor comment.
• Explain respectfully when a recommendation is not followed.
• Ensure that revisions do not introduce new inconsistencies or ethical concerns.
• Submit the revision within the deadline specified by the editor.

The editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and revised version before issuing a decision.

Editorial decisions are based on originality, scientific significance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and contribution to vocational engineering, applied engineering, or technological development.

• Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Manuscript content must not be disclosed, copied, distributed, or used for personal advantage.
• Reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are confidential.
• Confidential information may only be shared with persons directly involved in the editorial process or an authorized research-integrity investigation.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any relationship that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their independence and objectivity.

A reviewer should decline the assignment when there is a financial, institutional, professional, academic, or personal conflict of interest. Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts for which they have a relevant conflict.

Reviewers should report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, citation manipulation, unethical research, or inappropriate authorship confidentially to the editor.

Allegations will be assessed according to the journal's Publication Ethics and Misconduct Policy. Reviewers should avoid unsupported accusations and provide relevant evidence whenever possible.

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, financial, political, institutional, or personal influence. The publisher supports editorial freedom and does not interfere with decisions concerning acceptance, revision, rejection, correction, or retraction.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned written request supported by relevant evidence. An appeal should identify a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, overlooked evidence, conflict of interest, or ethical concern.

Appeals based only on disagreement with reviewer judgment may not be reconsidered. Where appropriate, an appeal may be evaluated by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision.