Peer review is defined as subjecting an author’s scholarly work or research articles to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. NUSSJ strives to provide the fairest system of double-blind peer review and the best possible service to authors.

The Peer Review Process make manuscripts to become

More Robust: Peer reviewers may point out gaps in your paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.

Easier to Read: If parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can tell you so that you can fix them. After all, if an expert cannot understand what you have done, it is unlikely that a reader in a different field will understand.

More Useful: Peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field and can make suggestions to improve or better highlight this to readers.

Better Quality: Peer reviewers make sure that the manuscripts published in the journal are of the correct quality maintain the journal’s authenticity.

Key Peer Review Process stages

Stage 1: Internal Review
After submission, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial evaluation of the manuscript to assess its scope relevance, content adequacy, formatting, completeness, and publication status. At this stage, all submissions are screened for plagiarism and machine-generated content using Turnitin plagiarism detection software. If plagiarism, excessive similarity, or inappropriate machine-generated text is identified, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revision or rejected in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies.

Stage 2: Double-Anonymous External Peer Review
In the second stage, the manuscript undergoes double-anonymous external peer review, in which both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed. The manuscript is evaluated by independent external reviewers based on its scholarly quality, originality, methodology, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions: accept as submitted, accept with minor revisions, or accept with major revisions. Manuscripts recommended for acceptance without revision proceed directly to publication. When revisions are required, authors must address the reviewers’ comments and resubmit the revised manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief for further evaluation. Where necessary, the revised manuscript may be forwarded to the same or an additional reviewer for further consideration.