Peer Review Process

All research articles submitted to the Scientific Journal of Fergana State University (SJFSU) are evaluated through editorial screening and external peer review. Peer review allows submitted work to be assessed by independent experts in the field and helps ensure the quality, validity, and originality of the research that the journal publishes.

Peer Review Model

SJFSU operates a single‑blind (single‑anonymous) peer review system. In this model, the editors and reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. The reviewers’ identities are also kept confidential from each other.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment
2. Technical check
   After submission, each manuscript is checked by the editorial office to ensure that:
   • all required files and metadata have been provided;
   • the manuscript follows the journal’s author guidelines;
   • ethical requirements are met (e.g. research integrity, permissions);
   • the manuscript is within the aims and scope of the journal.

Manuscripts that are clearly out of scope, of insufficient quality, or that do not meet basic ethical or technical standards may be rejected without external review or returned to the authors for correction.

2. Scientific screening
   A Scientific Editor (such as the Editor‑in‑Chief or a designated Subject Editor) evaluates the manuscript for originality, methodological soundness, and potential contribution to the field. The editor may decide to:
   • send the manuscript for external peer review,
   • request clarifications or technical corrections, or
   • reject the manuscript at this stage.

2. Selection of Reviewers and Peer Review

For manuscripts that proceed to external review:

• The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. Reviewers may come from the editorial board or from the wider scholarly community.
• Reviewers are asked to assess, among other aspects:
• originality and significance of the work;
• soundness and transparency of the methodology and analysis;
• clarity and organization of the manuscript;
• appropriateness of references and use of prior literature;
• adherence to ethical standards.

Reviewers provide written reports and a recommendation (e.g. accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject). The journal aims to obtain reviews within a reasonable timeframe, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

3. Revision and Resubmission

• The handling editor communicates the anonymized reviewer reports and editorial comments to the authors.
• Authors are invited to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response to reviewers, explaining how each comment has been addressed or why certain suggestions have not been followed.
• Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation, or assessed by the editor alone, depending on the extent of the changes.

4. Editorial Decisions

The final decision on every manuscript rests with the Editor‑in‑Chief or a delegated Academic Editor.

At any point in the evaluation process (after initial screening, after one review, or after multiple reviews), the editor may decide to:

• Accept the manuscript in its current form or after minor editorial changes;
• Request minor revision;
• Request major revision with the possibility of re‑review;
• Reject the manuscript; or
• Invite the authors to resubmit as a new manuscript if substantial additional work is required.

Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers’ reports, the authors’ responses, and the editor’s own assessment of the manuscript’s quality, significance, and fit with the journal.

5. Confidentiality

The peer review process is strictly confidential:

• Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and all correspondence are treated as privileged information and are not shared beyond those directly involved in the editorial process.
• Reviewers must not distribute or discuss the manuscript with others without explicit permission from the editor.
• Information obtained during peer review may not be used for personal advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
• After completing the review, reviewers are expected to delete or securely store the manuscript files and related documents.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and without bias.

• Reviewers should decline the invitation to review if they:
• have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors;
• work in the same department or institution as the authors (where this could affect impartiality);
• have personal, professional, or financial interests that could influence their judgment; or
• feel unable to provide an objective assessment for any reason.
• If a potential conflict of interest becomes apparent only after accepting the review, the reviewer must inform the editor immediately and, if necessary, withdraw from the review.

When a manuscript is submitted by an editor of SJFSU, it is handled by another, independent editor, and the author‑editor is completely excluded from the editorial decision‑making process. Such submissions are subject to the same peer‑review standards as any other manuscript.

7. Special Issues

From time to time, SJFSU publishes special issues devoted to particular themes or conference proceedings.

• Special issues are usually managed by one or more Guest Editors, appointed by the Editor‑in‑Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board.
• Guest Editors are responsible for overseeing the peer review of manuscripts within the scope of the special issue, but they must follow exactly the same editorial and ethical standards as for regular issues.
• Manuscripts submitted to a special issue undergo the same initial screening, reviewer selection, and decision process as regular submissions.
• If a Guest Editor (or member of the editorial board) is an author or co‑author of a manuscript for a special issue, that manuscript is handled by another independent editor to avoid conflicts of interest.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that a significant error has occurred in the peer review or editorial process may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office, clearly explaining their concerns. The appeal will be considered by the Editor‑in‑Chief, who may seek advice from additional independent experts. Decisions on appeals are final.