GOVERNING BODY
SUBMISSION
JOURNAL POLICIES
Peer Review Process
EDITORIAL INFORMATION
Peer Review Process
Editorial Evaluation and Independent Peer Review Procedures
Review Policy
The Journal of Computer Science and Technology Application (CORISINTA) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process involving three independent external reviewers for every manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening. The process is managed by the Editor-in-Chief and an assigned Handling Editor to ensure scientific quality, originality, and publication integrity.
3
Independent Reviewers
DOUBLE-BLIND
Review System
8–12
Weeks Estimated
Editorial Workflow and Timeline
The following diagram illustrates the editorial evaluation and peer review procedures implemented by CORISINTA.
CORISINTA EDITORIAL PROCESS
Overview of the CORISINTA manuscript evaluation, three-independent-reviewer assessment, editorial decision, revision, and publication process.
The following table outlines the estimated duration of each editorial stage.
| Editorial Stage | Estimated Time |
|---|---|
| 1. Manuscript Submission and Receipt Initial registration and administrative processing |
1–2 working days |
| 2. Initial Editorial Screening Scope, originality, guidelines, and ethical compliance |
5–7 working days |
| 3. Reviewer Assignment Appointment of three independent reviewers |
5–7 working days |
| 4. Independent Peer Review Three individual academic evaluations |
14–21 calendar days |
| 5. Editorial Assessment Evaluation of reviewer reports and editorial decision |
3–5 working days |
| 6. Author Revision Revised manuscript and response letter |
Up to 14 calendar days |
| 7. Re-review (If Required) Further evaluation of revised manuscripts |
7–14 calendar days |
| 8. Final Editorial Decision Final acceptance or rejection decision |
3–5 working days |
| 9. Copyediting and Publication Proofreading, DOI registration, and online publication |
7–10 working days |
Rejection Progress and Notification Timeline
A manuscript that does not meet CORISINTA's editorial or scientific requirements may be rejected at different points in the workflow. The following pathways clarify the relevant stages and estimated time before the author receives a decision.
REJECTION PATH 01
Desk Rejection — Initial Editorial Screening
Estimated time: 5–7 working days
If a manuscript is outside the journal's focus and scope, has serious originality or publication ethics concerns, or fails essential editorial requirements, the Editor may reject it before external peer review.
Submission → Initial Screening → Desk Rejection Notice
REJECTION PATH 02
Rejection After External Peer Review
Estimated stages: 5–7 working days + 14–21 calendar days + 3–5 working days
If the three reviewers identify substantial scientific, methodological, originality, or ethical problems, the Editor may issue a rejection decision after considering the completed reviewer reports.
Reviewer Assignment → Peer Review → Editorial Assessment → Rejection Notice
REJECTION PATH 03
Rejection After Author Revision
Estimated stages: Up to 14 calendar days + 7–14 calendar days + 3–5 working days
If essential reviewer comments remain inadequately addressed after revision and further evaluation, the Editor may reject the manuscript following the final editorial assessment.
Author Revision → Re-review → Final Editorial Decision → Rejection Notice
The time estimates above refer to the relevant stages in the existing editorial timeline; they are not additional periods to be added to the stated 8–12-week workflow. Actual processing may vary depending on reviewer availability and editorial circumstances. Authors are notified of a rejection decision through the OJS platform, with an explanation and relevant reviewer comments where applicable.
ESTIMATED TOTAL WORKFLOW
8–12 Weeks
Approximately 56–84 days, subject to editorial and revision requirements
Three-Reviewer Evaluation System
Three independent external reviewers assess each manuscript individually. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications and expertise relevant to the submitted research. They must disclose potential conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality throughout the process.
R1
Reviewer 1
Individual Report
R2
Reviewer 2
Individual Report
R3
Reviewer 3
Individual Report
↓
Editorial Assessment
Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor
Manuscript Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
Editorial Recommendations
Each reviewer provides an individual recommendation. The available editorial outcomes are:
Accept
Suitable for publication.
Minor Revision
Requires limited corrections.
Major Revision
Requires substantial revisions.
Reject
Does not meet journal standards.
The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor makes the final editorial decision by considering all three reviewer reports and maintaining editorial independence. The decision is not determined solely by a majority vote.
Manuscript Revision
Authors receiving a revision decision must submit the following documents:
1. Revised Manuscript
A revised version addressing the reviewers' comments and recommendations.
2. Response to Reviewers
A detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation until all scientific and editorial concerns have been adequately resolved.
Double-Blind Review and Confidentiality
Author Anonymity
Author identities are concealed from reviewers during evaluation.
Reviewer Anonymity
Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts, review reports, and editorial communications must remain confidential.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts and decline assignments that compromise their independence.
EDITORIAL COMMITMENT
Academic Quality and Integrity
CORISINTA is committed to independent academic evaluation, transparent editorial management, and responsible scholarly publishing. Every accepted manuscript must meet the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.
