Peer Review Policy

JORMAR operates a double-blind peer review process in which both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout the review. All submitted manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are subject to peer review.

1. Review Model

Double-blind peer review: Authors do not know the identity of their reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. Authors must remove all identifying information (names, affiliations, acknowledgements referencing grants or colleagues) from the manuscript file before submission. A separate Title Page containing author information is submitted separately.

2. Editorial Screening (Pre-Review)

Before external review, all submissions are screened by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Deputy Editor-in-Chief for:

Scope alignment with JORMAR's aims and coverage areas
Basic scientific and methodological soundness
Compliance with submission requirements (format, word count, similarity report)
Ethical compliance (required declarations, AI use disclosure)

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be desk rejected without external review. Authors will be notified within 5–10 working days.

3. Reviewer Selection

The assigned Section Editor selects a minimum of two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter. The following principles guide selection:

Independence: Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions.
Geographic diversity: Reviewers are sought from different countries and regions where possible.
Disciplinary expertise: Reviewers are selected based on their demonstrated subject expertise and publication record.
Author suggestions: Authors may suggest up to six potential reviewers from different countries. The journal is not obligated to use these suggestions and will not appoint reviewers who have a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Reviewer exclusions: Authors may request exclusion of specific individuals from the review process and must provide reasons. Such requests will be respected unless they prejudice fair review.

4. Review Criteria — Scoring Matrix

JORMAR reviewers evaluate manuscripts against six weighted criteria, each scored on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent):

Criterion	Score Range	What is Assessed
Originality & Novelty	1–5	Contribution to knowledge; new findings, methods, or perspectives
Scientific Rigour	1–5	Soundness of conclusions; appropriate statistical analysis; reproducibility
Methodology Quality	1–5	Appropriateness of experimental design; sufficiency of detail for replication
Industrial / Policy Relevance	1–5	Applicability to raw materials industry, policy, or development goals
Clarity & Structure	1–5	Logical organisation; quality of writing; clarity of figures and tables
Literature Integration	1–5	Adequacy of literature review; appropriate citation of relevant prior work

5. Review Timeline

Reviewer invitation and acceptance: 3–5 working days
Review completion target: 21–30 days from reviewer acceptance
Editorial decision: Within 7 days of receiving all reviews

JORMAR sends automated reminders to reviewers approaching the deadline. If a reviewer does not respond within the allotted period, the Section Editor will assign an alternative reviewer.

6. Editorial Decision Options

Accept Submission — Published as submitted or with minor copyediting
Revisions Required (Minor) — Acceptable with small changes; no re-review required
Revisions Required (Major) — Substantive changes required; manuscript returned to reviewers
Decline Submission — Does not meet JORMAR's standards; authors may not resubmit the same work

7. Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was made in error may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected], providing a detailed scientific justification. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on appeal is final.

Policy effective: 2026 | Reviewed annually | Questions: [email protected]