Decision-Making Process

Editorial Decision-Making Process

ACADEMIA Tech Frontiers Journal (ATFJ)
https://academia.edu.pk/index.php/atfj

At ACADEMIA Tech Frontiers Journal (ATFJ), we uphold a rigorous, transparent, and ethical editorial workflow designed to ensure the publication of high-quality, peer-reviewed research in engineering, technology, and applied sciences. Each submission undergoes a structured review process that evaluates its originality, technical soundness, ethical compliance, and alignment with the journal’s interdisciplinary scope.

1. Initial Submission Screening

Preliminary Editorial Check
Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial administrative and technical screening to ensure the manuscript:

  • Adheres to formatting and structural guidelines (title page, abstract, keywords, figures, references)

  • Includes all mandatory declarations (authorship contributions, conflict of interest, ethical approvals, funding sources)

  • Passes plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin)

Note: Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 15% may be returned or rejected at this stage.

Scope and Relevance Review
The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits within the scope of ATFJ and contributes original knowledge in engineering, computing, or technology fields. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's disciplinary focus may be desk-rejected without external peer review.

2. Peer Review Process

Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. The double-blind peer review process is followed to ensure confidentiality for both authors and reviewers.

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess submissions based on:

  • Novelty and impact in the field of technology or applied sciences

  • Methodological soundness and replicability

  • Practical or theoretical contributions

  • Data integrity, accuracy, and ethical compliance

  • Structure, clarity, and quality of presentation

Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers typically choose from the following recommendations:

✅ Accept as is
✏️ Minor revisions required
???? Major revisions required
❌ Reject

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

Review Consolidation
The handling editor consolidates reviewer feedback to form an informed editorial recommendation. In case of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be invited or the matter escalated to the Editorial Board.

Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewer input and editorial insight. Outcomes include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions

  • Major Revisions

  • Reject

Authors are notified via email and provided with detailed reviewer feedback and revision instructions.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

Minor Revisions
Authors are granted 2–3 weeks to address minor changes. The revised manuscript is typically reviewed by the handling editor.

Major Revisions
For substantial changes, authors are granted 4–6 weeks. The revised submission may be sent for a second round of peer review.

Resubmission After Rejection
Rejected manuscripts are generally not reconsidered. However, if editorial feedback indicates significant potential, the author may be invited to resubmit as a new manuscript, pending editorial approval.

5. Communication and Appeals

Decision Notification
Authors receive a formal decision letter outlining:

  • Final editorial outcome

  • Reviewer feedback

  • Required actions or formatting compliance (if accepted)

Appeals Process
Authors may submit a formal written appeal, with a clear justification, if they disagree with a decision. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent board member, and the final decision on appeals is binding.

6. Post-Acceptance Workflow

Final Submission Package
After acceptance, authors must submit the following:

  • Final revised manuscript

  • Author bios and institutional affiliations

  • High-resolution figures/tables (where applicable)

  • Signed copyright and licensing forms

Copyediting and Proofs
Manuscripts are professionally edited for grammar, formatting, and clarity. Authors are provided with proofs for final approval before publication.

Online Publication
Accepted papers are published in the next scheduled issue and made openly accessible under the CC BY-NC 4.0 License, permitting non-commercial use with proper attribution.

7. Ethical Oversight

Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any potential or actual conflicts of interest that could influence the review or publication process.

Research Ethics Compliance
Submissions involving human subjects, simulations, sensitive data, or institutional cooperation must include ethical approval and informed consent documentation where applicable.

Data Integrity and Transparency
ATFJ promotes responsible and reproducible research. Cases involving data fabrication, manipulation, or other ethical breaches may lead to retraction, correction, or institutional notification.

This structured editorial decision-making framework reflects ATFJ’s commitment to scholarly excellence, integrity, and innovation in the fields of technology, engineering, and applied sciences.