The Journal of Naval Architecture and Marine Technology (JNAMT) employs a structured, transparent, and rigorous peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of published research.
Submission and Initial Screening
1. Upon submission via the online system (Online Manuscript System), manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening for adherence to the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and compliance with ethical standards.
2. Manuscripts passing this stage proceed to the formal peer review process.
Double-Blind Peer Review
JNA&MT uses a double-blind review system, meaning reviewers remain anonymous to authors and vice versa.
Each manuscript is assigned to an Associate Editor with expertise in the subject area.
The Associate Editor appoints at least two external expert reviewers specialized in naval architecture, marine technology, or related engineering fields.
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following:
Originality and scientific significance.
Clarity and accuracy of the title and abstract.
Clear statement of research objectives and rationale.
Robustness and appropriateness of engineering methodology.
Accuracy, clarity, and presentation of results (including figures, tables, and technical data).
Validity of interpretations and conclusions.
Adequacy of references to recent and relevant literature.
Appropriate technical terminology and consistency.
Ethical Assessment
Reviewers and editors actively check for ethical issues such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data manipulation.
Plagiarism detection tools (e.g., iThenticate) are used to support this process.
Reviewers’ Feedback and Editorial Decision
Reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback and recommend one of the following: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
The assigned Editor consolidates the evaluations and makes a recommendation.
The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board when necessary, makes the final decision.
Divergent Reviewer Opinions and Additional Evaluation
If reviewer opinions differ, the editor evaluates the scientific basis of both reports.
If necessary, the manuscript may be referred to a third independent reviewer or another relevant expert.
In exceptional cases where a third review is not considered necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may determine the next step or make the final decision based on the available reviews and editorial assessment.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewer reports and editorial assessment.
Revision and Final Decision
Authors receive reviewer comments and detailed revision instructions.
Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers if necessary.
The Editorial Board makes the final acceptance or rejection decision based on reviewer recommendations, revisions, and ethical compliance.
Accepted manuscripts undergo final editorial checks, copyediting, and proofreading prior to publication.
By following this rigorous process, JNAMT ensures the publication of high-quality, ethical, and impactful research in naval architecture and marine technology.
