JSTA.
Journal of Scientific andThe Journal of Scientific and Technological Advances (JSTA) is committed to editorial independence, academic fairness, confidentiality, transparency of procedures, and research integrity.
Manuscripts are evaluated according to their relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, scientific contribution, methodological soundness, reliability of analysis, clarity of reporting, and compliance with applicable research ethics standards.
JSTA follows a double-anonymous peer-review model for research manuscripts proceeding to external evaluation. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another to the extent reasonably practicable. Editors responsible for manuscript handling may have access to author identities where required for administrative and ethical assessment.
The journal's multidisciplinary scope does not replace the need for specialized assessment. Reviewers are selected according to the subject matter, methodology, and expertise required for each submission.
New submissions undergo preliminary assessment for scope alignment, completeness, scholarly contribution, compliance with author guidelines, ethical declarations, and originality. Manuscripts that do not satisfy essential requirements may be returned or declined without external peer review.
Manuscripts selected for external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent, suitably qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the research. Reviewer assignments must be free from relevant conflicts of interest. The double-anonymous process is maintained to the extent reasonably practicable.
The handling editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and applicable editorial standards before reaching or recommending a decision. Possible outcomes include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, and rejection.
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not automatically determine editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief normally retains final editorial responsibility, except where a conflict of interest requires assignment of independent decision-making authority to another editor.
When revisions are invited, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how reviewer and editorial comments have been addressed.
Substantial revisions may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by additional specialists, or evaluated further by the handling editor. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.
Reviewers are selected according to relevant academic expertise, methodological competence, and independence. Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful, without discriminatory judgments or inappropriate personal criticism.
Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer identities, review reports, and editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential. Review materials must not be disclosed, distributed, uploaded to unauthorized external services, or used for personal advantage without appropriate editorial authorization.
Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise independent judgment. Individuals with relevant conflicts must decline the assignment or recuse themselves from the affected editorial process.
Concerns involving plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, unethical research, inappropriate authorship, unreliable references, or undisclosed substantive use of generative AI are evaluated under the journal's publication ethics procedures.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and must remain independent of inappropriate financial, commercial, institutional, and personal influence.
The journal owner also serves as Editor-in-Chief. The separate print publisher, Istanbul Topkapi University Press, is responsible for printed editions only and does not exercise authority over manuscript acceptance, rejection, or peer-review outcomes.
Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, close collaborators, family members, or other individuals presenting relevant conflicts of interest must be assigned to a suitably qualified, non-conflicted handling editor. That editor must have independent responsibility for reviewer selection, editorial assessment, and the final manuscript decision. The conflicted individual must not participate in those processes.
JSTA does not guarantee fixed review or publication times. Evaluation duration depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of required revisions, and any necessary research integrity checks.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they identify a substantial factual error, a relevant procedural irregularity, an undisclosed conflict of interest, or another material concern affecting the fairness of the evaluation.
Appeals should explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting evidence. An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.
Where practicable, appeals should be assessed by an independent editor who was not responsible for the original decision. Where an appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, a non-conflicted editor or appropriately designated independent authority must manage the matter.
Complaints involving research misconduct, editorial conduct, confidentiality breaches, or other ethical concerns must be handled impartially, with appropriate confidentiality, documentation, and an opportunity for relevant parties to respond.
Authors may consult the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and Editorial Governance Policy for related requirements.
Review the journal's manuscript preparation requirements and check the official OJS portal for current submission availability.