Upon submission, each manuscript is assigned to an academic editor for an initial assessment. For regular submissions, this role is undertaken by the Editor-in-Chief. In the case of Special Issue submissions, the Guest Editor is responsible for the initial handling, unless a potential conflict of interest exists, in which case an appropriate Editorial Board member is appointed with the approval of the Editor-in-Chief. The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript and may recommend suitable reviewers, request preliminary revisions, proceed to peer review, or decline the submission at this stage.

To ensure editorial independence and transparency, Guest Editors are not permitted to make editorial decisions on manuscripts they have submitted to their own Special Issues. In such cases, decision-making authority is transferred to a designated Editorial Board member. Likewise, Editors-in-Chief and Editorial Board members do not have access to the peer-review process of their own submissions, except in their capacity as authors.

Throughout the review process, a designated member of the journal’s editorial staff oversees communication and coordination, serving as the primary point of contact for authors, editors, and reviewers from submission through final decision or publication.

JASLDA operates a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to promote impartial and objective evaluation.

Each manuscript is assessed based on at least two independent review reports. Reviewers may be suggested by the handling editor during the preliminary evaluation. Alternatively, reviewers are selected from the journal’s Editorial Board, established reviewer database, or through identification of qualified experts based on relevant scholarly publications.

Authors may propose potential reviewers during submission. All suggested reviewers are carefully screened to prevent conflicts of interest, and individuals with competing interests will not be considered. Authors may also request the exclusion of specific reviewers; such requests will be respected provided they do not compromise the integrity or thoroughness of the review process.

All reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

• Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors, including recent co-authorship within the past five years;

• Possession of a doctoral degree or equivalent expertise (with limited exceptions in specific disciplines);

• Demonstrated research activity and recent publications relevant to the manuscript’s subject area;

• No excessive recent reviewing activity that may affect review quality.

Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to:

• Possess appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript;

• Provide constructive, high-quality, and timely review reports;

• Adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct and publication ethics.

Reviewers are generally given 7 to 10 days to complete their initial evaluations through the online submission system. For revised manuscripts, reviewers are typically requested to submit their assessments within three days. Deadline extensions may be granted upon reasonable request.