Manuscript Submission

Authors submit a reviewer-facing Blinded Manuscript, a separate Title Page, and any supplementary files required for the submission through the journal's online submission system. Authors may use the J-HyTEL Manuscript Template or prepare their manuscript in another clear and professional Microsoft Word format that complies with the current Author Guidelines.

Receipt & Initial Verification

The Journal Manager and editor verify that the Blinded Manuscript, separate Title Page, metadata, declarations, supplementary files where applicable, and other required documents are complete. Where a preprint or another permitted public version exists, the complete citation, DOI or stable URL, posting date, and version information must be supplied confidentially in the separate title page, Comments to the Editor, or another designated editorial field. Identifying details should be removed from the reviewer-facing file and replaced with “[blinded for review]” where necessary. A confirmation message is then sent to the corresponding author.

Scope, Originality & Readiness Assessment

The editor assesses alignment with the journal's aims and scope, novelty, potential contribution, basic language quality, ethical declarations, submission readiness, prior-dissemination disclosures, and textual overlap under the Plagiarism & Similarity Screening Policy. Matches to a verified, appropriately disclosed preprint or another permitted prior version are assessed separately from unattributed third-party overlap and do not, by themselves, establish plagiarism or duplicate publication.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Every research or other substantive scholarly manuscript that proceeds toward publication is assigned to independent external experts and must receive at least two completed review reports. The journal withholds author identities from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors and uses anonymised reviewer-facing files. Because identity may sometimes be inferred or discovered through preprints or other public records, these procedures reduce avoidable disclosure but do not guarantee absolute anonymity. Reviewers are selected independently by the handling editor; the journal does not request or accept reviewer nominations from authors.

The editorial office may verify reviewer identity, affiliation, expertise, and publication history through institutional and scholarly records. Reviewers must not deliberately search for author identities when unnecessary for scholarly or integrity assessment. If identity becomes known and creates or may create a competing interest or risk of bias, the reviewer must notify the handling editor. When reports conflict materially, are incomplete, or require additional expertise, the authorised, non-conflicted editor may seek clarification or appoint a third independent reviewer.

Grounds for an Unfavourable Recommendation

Reviewers may recommend rejection where fundamental problems substantially limit the manuscript's scholarly value or reliability.

• The purpose or research motivation is unclear.
• The contribution to existing knowledge is insufficient.
• The manuscript is seriously disorganised or unclear.
• The findings have limited relevance or significance.
• The methods or evidence do not support the claims.
• The conclusions are not supported by the reported results.

Reviewer Comments Forwarded to Authors

Reviewers provide detailed, constructive comments. The editor evaluates and synthesises the reports before sending the relevant feedback and decision letter to the corresponding author.

Editorial Decision

The authorised, non-conflicted editor considers the manuscript, review reports, ethical issues, author responses, and journal standards. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the final editorial decision automatically.

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Resubmit for Review
• Resubmit Elsewhere
• Decline Submission
• See Comments

An editor with an actual, potential, or perceived conflict must recuse and the submission must be reassigned. Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief, another editor, or an Editorial Board member receive no preferential treatment and are handled independently.

Manuscript Revision

Authors revise the manuscript in response to the editor's and reviewers' comments.

Revision Compliance Check

The editor evaluates the revised manuscript and the point-by-point response. Minor revisions may be assessed editorially. Major revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers when they remain available, independent, and free of relevant conflicts. Additional revision or review rounds may be requested; revision does not guarantee acceptance.

Acceptance

When the authorised, non-conflicted editor determines that the manuscript meets the journal's scholarly, ethical, editorial, and presentation standards, a formal acceptance decision is issued and the manuscript is transferred to production.

Copyediting

The accepted manuscript is checked for grammar, clarity, style, formatting, consistency, references, and compliance with the journal's publication requirements.

Final Approval & Proofing

An authorised editor and the Journal Manager verify completeness, consistency, and publication readiness. Authors may receive a proof for final checking before publication.

Material changes after acceptance require editorial approval and will be communicated to the authors.

Production & Publication

The article is formatted, typeset, and published online as the Version of Record. DOI metadata is prepared through Crossref; the DOI is activated before or promptly after public release, and any temporary DOI-pending status is displayed transparently on the same article record. Published content is made openly accessible and managed under the journal's documented backup and preservation arrangements. See the Archiving & Preservation Policy for the preservation services currently in operation.

• DOI Registered
• Open Access
• Online Publication
• Long-Term Archiving

Protected Manuscript and Review Information

Manuscripts, figures, data, reviewer reports, identities, and editorial correspondence must not be disclosed, shared, or used for personal advantage. Review assignments must not be delegated without prior editor authorisation.

Use of Generative AI

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential submission material to external generative-AI systems or delegate evaluation, recommendation, or decision-making to AI. Human expertise and accountability remain essential throughout the process. The complete requirements are stated in the Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy.

Peer-Review Records

Reviewer invitations, identity-verification records, conflict disclosures, reports, response letters, revision histories, correspondence, and decision letters are retained securely within the controlled OJS environment for at least five years after the final editorial decision, subject to applicable privacy and legal requirements.