Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

NAS Publisher is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and quality control through a rigorous double-blind peer review process. Every submitted manuscript undergoes preliminary internal evaluation followed by independent expert assessments to ensure academic validity, originality, and methodological soundness.

2. The Peer Review Workflow

Our evaluation structure moves through distinct sequential gates designed to filter research quality and provide constructive academic feedback to authors, strictly aligned with international publishing standards and transparency frameworks.

Peer Review Process Flowchart

3. Review Stages Explained

• Initial Screening: The Managing Editor checks the manuscript for scope alignment, formatting compliance, language standards, and original similarity/plagiarism using designated screening tools.
• Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the primary screening are allocated to at least two independent subject-matter experts. Under our double-blind policy, author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other.
• Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess submissions based on originality, scientific rigor, empirical relevance, clarity of presentation, and appropriate citation of prior literature.
• Final Decision: Based on the evaluators' feedback reports, the Editor-in-Chief issues a final decision: Accept as is, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.

4. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to contest a rejection decision may submit a formal appeal letter providing clear point-by-point responses to reviewer concerns. Appeals are evaluated independently by an editorial board member not involved in the original decision.